Stopped on the Street by Store Workers

[Spankymonkey]

It's the stores duty to train their security guards correctly, so therefore they can be held liable.

If the OP thinks the police are going to rush in and make an arrest I think he is gravely mistaken.

[shootist]

It's the stores duty to train their security guards correctly, so therefore they can be held liable.

If they were the store's security guards. As I've said, it is possible that the store will claim that the two men were not their employees but acting on their own sense of public duty. They have unfortunately moved location. The manager may only know their first names, or even just nicknames.

If the OP thinks the police are going to rush in and make an arrest I think he is gravely mistaken.

If the two individuals can be positively identified then there may be no need for the police to rush anywhere or to arrest anyone, unless it turns out to be necessary.

Hopefully, the OP will keep us informed of any progress, or lack thereof.

[dls]

The levels of damages suggested might be a little old. Such awards can be difficult to trace, but see for example Elosta v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis and Others [2014] 1 WLR 239, where a wrongful detention of 45 minutes was counted only in nominal damages in the absence of evidence of particular loss.

[steve]

As far as the police are concerned, I would guess that you probably do not have a crime number, but rather an incident number which merely records your complaint. If it's a crime number then there is some small chance that the police might have to do something about it and that is not usually viewed by them as a good thing.

I have not seen the number as my partner is away from home. I am told that the Police spoke to one of the culprits and explained to him his rights and obligations, and that the culprit was apologetic, but highlighted the fact that he has lost a lot of stock. I am told that the report will be written up and will be accessible online (presumably using the crime/incident number?) or if my partner writes to request it.

In terms of the store's relation to its supplier, the supplier advertises its ability to supply shops, provide branding and supportive advertising. So there is almost certainly no formal ownership link. The reason for writing to them is to encourage them to consider providing their customers with appropriate training.

I can imagine that the culprit's story will evolve if further action is mooted, and given the store is 150 miles away from our home the cost, effort and risk of taking action may be high compared with the potential benefit of even £500.

Up to now I've felt sorry for this store since the Tesco Metro opened next door...

[Spankymonkey]

The levels of damages suggested might be a little old. Such awards can be difficult to trace, but see for example Elosta v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis and Others [2014] 1 WLR 239, where a wrongful detention of 45 minutes was counted only in nominal damages in the absence of evidence of particular loss.

Don't damages tend to be significantly lower in judicial review cases than that of civil cases? I always thought that Thompson v. Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis [1997] was considered the generally accepted authority on damages.

[dls]

Don't damages tend to be significantly lower in judicial review cases than that of civil cases?

Yes - damages are not usually an element in judicial review cases. Success in judicial review is the retaking of a decision.

The current discussion has no relevance that I can see to judicial review.

[Spankymonkey]

The current discussion has no relevance that I can see to judicial review.

Then why did you refer to a judicial review judgement?

[shootist]

The current discussion has no relevance that I can see to judicial review.

Then why did you refer to a judicial review judgement?

I can see no reference by DLS to JR anywhere on this thread. Maybe another, different, thread?

[dls]

Sorry the case I referred to was indeed a request for judicial review. It wa a request for declaration that the arrest had been unlawful. In such form it is in effect saying that the primary result wanted was that declaration and not damages.

[Spankymonkey]

The current discussion has no relevance that I can see to judicial review.

Then why did you refer to a judicial review judgement?

I can see no reference by DLS to JR anywhere on this thread. Maybe another, different, thread?

Try looking a bit harder Shootist. I'm sure you'll find it eventually.