I have written blog posts on many prior occasions about the lawless violence of private security ‘guards’ who behave like thugs- for- hire at festivals, in shops and at private entertainment venues.
The most recent such case that I have settled, against Butlins, is particularly shocking because its victims were a mother and her 7-year-old son, who is severely autistic.
In February 2023 my client Maria and her young son were holidaying at Butlins Skegness resort. They had been walking through a theatre known as the “Skyline Pavilion” and had stopped to watch a dress rehearsal of a show which was taking place on the main stage. Our client’s son started dancing to the music and Maria got out her mobile phone to film him having fun. Although it was late, they were certainly not the only guests around – several other members of the public were watching the performers, including some sitting down at tables.
Maria was then approached by a male security guard who told her that she had to leave. When Maria protested about this, she was swarmed by other security staff, including a female security guard who took hold of Maria’s left arm and forced it up behind her back and began to forcibly march her from the pavilion. When Maria became distressed that she was being dragged away from her son in this manner, the female guard then took hold of Maria’s head and knocked her legs out from under her, in what can only be described as a ‘martial- arts’ manoeuvre, causing Maria to fall forcefully onto the ground. The female guard then proceeded to hold my client in a headlock on the ground, with Maria screaming in pain and distress. Maria was then pulled to her feet and pushed and held against a railing, before being forcibly escorted from the pavilion to a security hut.
This violence was completely unlawful and unnecessary. On no analysis could it be said that Maria was committing a breach of the peace (an actual or imminent act/ threat of violence to person or property) and nor is remaining in a Butlins theatre after being asked to leave an indictable offence – the only type of criminal offence which persons other than constables, including private security staff, can ‘arrest’ other citizens for, in accordance with Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
My client could not, in fact, have been lawfully arrested for what she was doing by actual police officers; sadly, that reflection is rarely one which gives the soldiers of private security pause for thought.
What was most harrowing for my client was that these terrible scenes were witnessed by her son – who must have thought that a nightmare was unfolding in front of his eyes, with strange people attacking his mother, and who fled in terror from the scene, greatly adding to Maria’s own distress as she was unable to go after him, but was dragged the other way, the prisoner of the security squad who forced her to accompany them to the ‘hut’ that appeared to be their office. At the hut Maria was then ‘released’, emotionally distraught at having been brutalised in this way and separated from her son. Thankfully, she was reunited with him a few minutes later when he was brought to the hut, equally upset, by another member of staff.
Maria now insisted that Butlins call Lincolnshire Police, and when Officers attended, she made a full report to them about what had occurred. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the Police refused to take any action (against anyone) – taking the side of the security staff as is so often the case (Big brothers/ little brother seems to be the usual relationship between Police and private security in such scenarios).
As a result of this incident, Maria sustained injuries to her wrist, knee, ankle and face for which she required hospital treatment as well as considerable psychological distress given the embarrassment and humiliation of the incident (which had been witnessed by other members of the public who had been in the Skyline Pavilion at the time) but worst of all the torment of that separation she had suffered from her son and her thought of what witnessing this event had done to him.
Calling this incident a ‘holiday from hell’ is no exaggeration.
Whilst it might have been hoped that Butlins would have been ashamed and contrite when I presented a letter of claim to them on behalf of Maria, their response was anything but. Adopting an aggressive and unrepentant stance, their lawyers tried to prevent the release of the body worn video footage from the cameras which were being worn by their security staff at the time and argued that the security guards use of force upon Maria was necessary because she was “trespassing”. Do not forget that throughout this incident, Maria and her son were paying guests at the Butlins establishment – one which the security staff through their heinous acts turned into something more akin to a prison camp than a holiday camp.
I am, however, pleased to confirm that notwithstanding Butlins’ ostensible denial of liability, I have recently been able to bring Maria’s claim to a successful conclusion for damages in the sum of £20,000 plus her legal costs.
Given the callous attitude displayed by Butlins’ staff at the time of the incident, and its insurers/ lawyers after the event, I am very happy to be assisting clients such as Maria in bringing both barrels of the civil law against the armies of private security – hitting them hard in the pocket being the only apparent way to bring about accountability and, perhaps, a future change in their behaviour.
My client’s name has been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.