On Wed,  3 Sep 2008 15:40:15 +0100, Ste  wrote:

>On Sep 3, 1:40 am, Alex Heney  wrote:
>> On Mon,  1 Sep 2008 13:25:16 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>> >On 1 Sep, 14:10, "GB"  wrote:
>> >> > That's why I think that a more effective
>> >> > course of action would be to take it up with Asda's complaints
>> >> > department rather than wasting money on a court action that will
>> >> > almost certainly be fruitless.
>>
>> >> One possible justification from the OP's point of view is that he will run
>> >> up some pretty significant costs for ASDA defending this case. I guess
>> >> they'll instruct counsel, etc.
>>
>> >> Really, this is a case that Asda ought to try to settle. The best they can
>> >> hope for is that they win the case but don't recover their costs. The worst
>> >> case is that they lose, fairly unlikely I agree, in which case they'll
>> >> generate millions of Pounds worth of unfavourable publicity. However, this
>> >> depends on how well the security guards perform as witnesses once they are
>> >> in court.
>>
>> >> Who knows, perhaps someone sensible at Asda will get to see this case before
>> >> it goes to court?
>>
>> >The problem, GB, is that no one at Asda seems to have an ounce of
>> >common sense. You're right, their costs are ratcheting up. And you're
>> >right, they ought to try and settle. A prompt and genuine apology and
>> >some gift vouchers would have nipped this in the bud last December.
>>
>> >And I'm quite confident that Asda will not win this action. The onus
>> >is upon them to prove, firstly, that the case comes under PACE s.
>> >24A(1), and not s.24A(2) - in other words, for them to prove the
>> >suspected offence was in progress rather than already complete.
>>
>> >R v Self [1992], although a case decided before the amendment to PACE
>> >1984 under SOCPA 2005, deals with precisely this issue (under very
>> >similar circumstances, a suspected shoplifter being arrested outside
>> >the store) and the court found that there had been no offence, and
>> >therefore the any person arrest was unlawful.
>>
>> It was a significantly different circumstance, because it was after
>> the suspect was completely off the premises of the retailer, and
>> indeed was  a good few yards away.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Secondly, if the case does indeed come under S.24A(1), it is for Asda
>> >to prove
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> You are the one bringing the case, so the burden of proof is on you.
>
>Not true. Where any arrest is made, and the arrestee alleges
>unlawfulness, it is for the arrestor to prove that they acted lawfully.

Once you have actually shown that there *was* an arrest, of course.

Which I do think likely in your case.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Mary had a little lamb. The doctor was surprised.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom