For all that they wear uniforms and often behave with the arrogance and aggression of a private Police Force, the fact is that security staff patrolling retail premises, on the hunt for shoplifters, only have the same “Citizen’s Arrest” powers that everybody else does, as defined by Section 24A of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE):
24A Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.
(4)The reasons are to prevent the person in question—
(a)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b)suffering physical injury;
(c)causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.
And those powers, as with Police powers of summary arrest (ie arrests made without the rare authority of a Court warrant), are contingent on reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, they do not come with the additional power to search a person or their property which Section 32 of PACE grants to actual Police Officers.
Sadly, these powers are commonly misunderstood and misused by retail security staff, leading their victims to have to turn to specialist lawyers such as myself for recompense and restitution. For whilst most of my time is spent holding misbehaving ‘official lawmen’ to account, I am also more than happy to help roundup and rectify the abuses of quasi-Police cowboys.
In September 2021 my client Michael, a medical professional and man of exemplary character, attended his local Sainsbury’s store. He had come to purchase a particular type of watermelon for his daughter’s birthday party. As he walked around the store Michael spoke on his mobile phone to his wife about what was required; after finding that no such melons were available Michael went to exit the store, having only been in there for a few minutes. This is something I’m sure we’ve all done on those occasions when we are on a ‘mission’ for a very specific and urgently required item, rather than a general ‘shop’.
As Michael approached the exit of the store, an alarm went off. As he had no items in his possession and the alarm had gone off before when he passed through the detectors, a common occurrence with these temperamental machines, Michael thought nothing of it and continued to exit the store.
At this point, an unknown man dressed in plain clothes, suddenly rushed to block Michael’s path, and immediately assaulted my client by grabbing his right arm and twisting it behind his back. Michael was utterly shocked. The man then forced him back into the store.
As Michael was marched ‘prisoner-style’ down the aisles, the man not only kept his arm twisted up behind his back, but actually threatened to break it. Due to the position that Michael’s arm was being held in, it started to turn numb.
The man now accused the Michael of being part of a ‘gang’, along with another person who had been stopped, whom Michael knew nothing about.
The man who had ‘apprehended’ Michael alleged that he had been communicating with other gang members on his mobile phone. Incredulous, Michael denied this and offered to show his phone to the man to prove that he had been simply talking to his wife; however, this was ignored.
As Michael was force-marched through the store, a female member of staff wearing a Sainsbury’s uniform and a name tag swore at him, evidently having decided he was a shoplifter. Just as private security operations generally neglect the proper rules of arrest, so they often disregard the time-honoured principle that any person is innocent until proven guilty; the staff involved behaving like judge, jury and jailer, as if supermarket aisles were an extra- territorial jurisdiction.
Michael was forced into a back office where his captor demanded that he take off the (then obligatory) Covid face mask that he was wearing, and provide his identification. Michael refused to do so. The man then claimed that he worked ‘for the government’, but when this was questioned by the Michael, his captor merely flashed a blue card at him before leaving the room.
Also present in the room was a uniformed security guard, a man with a Sainsbury’s name tag (who subsequently identified himself as the store manager), and another person who had been detained in this allegedly ‘gang busting’ operation.
Michael attempted to explain to the manager and the security guard that he had nothing to do with the other person who was detained, however they repeated the accusation about Michael being part of an organised gang stealing from the store and maintained that he had been seen on CCTV ‘communicating’ with other members of the gang. Despite Michael’s protests to the contrary, the security guard and manager maintained that they had not made an error and that his guilt was ‘proven’ by the CCTV. They then refused to allow Michael to leave the room and said that he would be held until police officers attended.
Michael provided the registration number of his car so that further CCTV footage could be checked to prove that he attended the store on his own and showed his captors his bank card with his name on, including for what it was worth his title of ‘Dr’ (although he was under no obligation to do either of these things). His cooperation availed him naught and he continued to be held.
After some time, two Police officers arrived. One of these Officers told Michael that he had reviewed the store CCTV and did not believe that Michael was involved in any thefts. The officer then told Michael that he was free to leave. However, Michael suffers from diabetes, and by the time that he was released he felt weak and lightheaded as his blood sugar levels were low. He asked whether he could purchase a soft drink with sugar but was refused.
As Michael was led out of the back office – Sainsbury’s temporary ‘Police Station’ – he was offered a bunch of flowers for his wife, which he declined. His compensation, I am pleased to say, was ultimately to be measured, not in petals but in tens of thousands of pounds.
Before leaving, Michael told the store manager that he wanted to make an official complaint. The manager said that hat he would record the complaint but refused to provide the Michael with any reference numbers for the incident or identify the member of staff that had sworn at him.
Accordingly, a few days later Michael emailed a formal complaint to Sainsbury’s customer services. In response, Sainsbury’s Executive Office first claimed that “after full investigation” they had determined that his complaint would be dismissed – only to retract this the following day (following another ‘full investigation’ we might wonder?) now stating that they accepted that Michael had been “identified in error” by a security guard employed by Mitie PLC, a well known private security company who work as subcontractors for supermarket chains and other nationwide businesses.
Sainsbury’s now somewhat improved on their bunch of flowers by offering Michael a ‘goodwill’ payment of £150, which he also wisely did not accept.
In a follow-up email Sainsbury’s stated-
“I can confirm the store have advised that you were identified incorrectly, and have mentioned, that as you were leaving our store, you were walking along side or behind those involved in a major shop lift. As a result of this, our guard wrongly accused yourself for being involved therefore you were detained in error. The way the guard handled the situation is highly unacceptable and is something that is being thoroughly reviewed with our security team. Please be assured, any action deemed necessary will be taken. Our team within the store should have handled this matter in a highly professional manner so to swear at yourself is completely unacceptable. Sainsburys take full ownership that you were detained in error and our guard and management team have been fully addressed to prevent a similar case going forward.”
As a result of the force used upon him, Michael was left with a sore arm, but far worse was the psychological damage that had been caused. Michael was deeply upset by the incident and felt extremely humiliated that it had taken place in full view of members of the public and Sainsbury’s staff, one of whom had sworn at him. Michael found that he was unable to properly enjoy his daughter’s birthday party due to the impact of the incident and he suffered sleeplessness thinking and worrying about the incident, particularly how the incident might both physically and mentally impair his ability to perform medical procedures in his job.
Michael also found himself unable to return to this particular Sainsbury’s store because of the highly distressing memories it brought back, and whilst able to bring himself to enter other supermarkets, he found himself plagued by anxiety whilst in such premises, for fear he might again be falsely accused of theft, detained, and assaulted. He also suffered from a legitimate concern that whilst he was being branded as a shoplifter, he might have been recognised by a colleague or patient, and feared damage to his professional reputation as a result.
Taking Action Against Sainsburys
After hearing Michael’s story I agreed to take his case on and prepared and presented a detailed letter of claim to Sainsburys.
In response to the claim, and contrary to their earlier assurance to Michael that they “took full ownership” for the error, Sainsburys prevaricated and delayed to such an extent that it was necessary for me to issue an application for Pre-Action Disclosure in the County Court to get them to hand over all relevant evidence.
In advance of the hearing of my client’s application, Sainsburys agreed to disclose the CCTV footage of the incident and then subsequently sought to pass the blame for what had happened onto the “reputable security services” whom they had employed i.e Mitie PLC.
The Mitier They Are, the Mitier They Fall…
In the circumstances, I now presented a claim to Mitie, with whom I have crossed swords on previous occasions, alleging both false imprisonment and assault and battery on behalf of Michael. Following investigation, Mitie admitted that their security guard had had no reasonable grounds to detain my client. I obtained medical evidence to quantify the full extent of the psychological impact which this incident had had upon my client, and in response Mitie put forwards an initial offer of £8,500 damages, which Michael rejected on my advice.
I am pleased to announce that I was ultimately able to negotiate a settlement of £12,000 damages for Michael , plus his legal costs; fair recompense for all he had gone through – and a lot more than a halfhearted bunch of flowers.
I think it is highly unlikely that either the big retail chains or security firms like Mitie will change their staff recruitment or training policies any time soon, and incidents like this will keep on happening.
Three Key Points To Remember When It Comes To Shoplifting Arrests
- Retail staff and security staff, no matter what uniforms they are wearing, nametags or attitude they are displaying, have no more powers to effect a “citizen’s arrest” under Section 24A of PACE than do the rest of us.
- Section 24A of PACE empowers citizens to arrest others whom they “reasonably suspect” to be committing an offence – see Section 24A 1(b) and 2(b) of PACE. Very often when an innocent person is stopped and accused by staff of shoplifting there will, practically speaking, be an absence of reasonable suspicion – just as in Michael ’s case, where an aggressive security guard appears to have negligently grabbed the wrong person. If you are innocent and have been detained by security staff, even if only for a few minutes, you should always seek legal advice to establish if you have a right to compensation.
- Retail and security staff in shoplifting cases, utilising Citizen’s Arrest powers, can only detain you until the Police arrive and use only reasonable force to do so – they are absolutely not empowered to interrogate you, hold you prisoner without contacting the Police or to search you or your belongings. A “Citizen’s Arrest” does not entitle a “Citizen’s Search” of the detained person.
Commonly, however, Retail Security staff ride roughshod over these important rules and safeguards designed to protect a person’s liberty and property. Contact me if this has happened to you, and together we’ll hold them to account.
My client’s name has been changed.
Read more about this matter in the case report: Man wrongfully detained in Sainsburys agrees out of court settlement
How you can help me
I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post a comment.