Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby atticus » Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:08 pm

shootist wrote:It seems 'good' law can be bad law.
atticus wrote:"Good law" is a term used to mean that the legal proposition being made is sound. It is not a qualitative opinion of the law.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby Peter and Luke » Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:26 pm

Hadley v Baxendale was decided in 1852 yet it is still the basis of the rule of remoteness in respect of contractual damages, as we all know.

As for the legal proposition of Self being unsound, one starts with the question, what is the "legal proposition" laid down in Self? I think I set out the ratio above, so is it "unsound"? At the end of the day, that is just a matter of opinion: One judge thinks position X is reasonable, another doesn't.

The reasoning of the CA makes sense but has harsh consequences for the reasons already expounded upon throughout this thread. Reducing this argument down to its absolute kernel: is the "pre-requisite rule" still mandatory? We still appear to have a difference of opinion on that one:)
Peter and Luke
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:27 am

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby shootist » Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:46 pm

atticus wrote:
shootist wrote:It seems 'good' law can be bad law.
atticus wrote:"Good law" is a term used to mean that the legal proposition being made is sound. It is not a qualitative opinion of the law.


Yes, I got that. What I did was to accept that 'Self' appears to be good law, but then made a qualitative observation that it might in fact be a bad decision.
Last edited by shootist on Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby shootist » Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:01 pm

Peter and Luke wrote:Reducing this argument down to its absolute kernel: is the "pre-requisite rule" still mandatory? We still appear to have a difference of opinion on that one:)


I don't see any great difference of opinion. 'Self' for better or for worse, appears quite definitive. No crime means no lawful arrest by non police persons.

It might be more interesting to discuss quite why this situation might have arisen, particularly in light of the opportunity to improve the situation when SOCPA 2005 was drafted. I ought not to have been beyond the capability of those drafting the law to work a system whereby an arrest could be justified on the basis of reasonable suspicion for all people, not just the police. This is not an unreasonable thought when it is considered that SOCPA made one of the most massive changes in arrest powers, possibly since the days of the Peelers, i.e. that for the first time an arrest by the police has to be 'necessary'. Quite a contrast to the powers that some PCSOs have in some places sometimes, which is the power to detain which is not a power to arrest but fits the description of an arrest just fine. I suspect that these situations have arisen due to senior police officers jealously guarding their 'special' nature.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby steve » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:54 pm

16 pages of comments to read! What's the summary?

Short version of my story: My partner thought he was being mugged by two large gentlemen on Tuesday evening. He had gone into a small independent supermarket carrying a bottle of wine (too tight to pay 5p for a bag at the previous shop), enquired about whether they had a particular product and left. Two other staff members appear to have gone after him to grab the bottle of wine which they assume had been taken from their shop. One grabbed him from behind and the other grabbed the bottle and refused to return it.

They would not let him go till he insisted on going to the neighbouring shop where they confirmed he'd purchased the wine there (he would not get the receipt out of his wallet for fear that he was really being mugged).

The police have indicated that they think it is assault. I don't know if they are planning to do anything.
steve
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:59 am

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby diy » Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:49 pm

Forget the police, request compensation from the shop in perhaps a form of a letter before action. Be realistic about what your claim is worth.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:49 pm

diy wrote:Forget the police, request compensation from the shop in perhaps a form of a letter before action...

CC head office if they're part of a chain... though perhaps half a step back from a formal letter before action.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby shootist » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:45 pm

1) It's assault. 2) I doubt the police are going to do anything unless they can be persuaded that the two large males were doing them out of a job. 3) A letter before action in respect of unlawful detention demanding the startup tariff of £500.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby tph » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:28 pm

steve wrote:16 pages of comments to read! What's the summary?

Short version of my story: My partner thought he was being mugged by two large gentlemen on Tuesday evening. He had gone into a small independent supermarket carrying a bottle of wine (too tight to pay 5p for a bag at the previous shop), enquired about whether they had a particular product and left. Two other staff members appear to have gone after him to grab the bottle of wine which they assume had been taken from their shop. One grabbed him from behind and the other grabbed the bottle and refused to return it.

They would not let him go till he insisted on going to the neighbouring shop where they confirmed he'd purchased the wine there (he would not get the receipt out of his wallet for fear that he was really being mugged).

The police have indicated that they think it is assault. I don't know if they are planning to do anything.


Perhaps the best thing to do is decide on what you would regard as a satisfactory resolution to the matter.
User avatar
tph
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:32 pm

shootist wrote: 3) A letter before action in respect of unlawful detention demanding the startup tariff of £500.

Could you explain that in layman's terms?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Torts - Negligence, Defamation and others

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest