The Lemon Fool

didds wrote:so going back to that summary v indictable stuff, but as the arrester you would (hopefully!) be given leeway for not appreciating the subtle nuances involved...

would that however mean that the arrested person, held until a police officer arrived, that subsequently could show that the offense was actually a summary one, not indictable, could "get off" on a technicality - as the arrest was not lawful and he would have legged it and wouldn't have been caught other than for the (illegal) citizen's arrest?

I merely ask cos thats how my brain works

Rather like the interpretation of what is considered reasonable force in defending yourself.

Many years ago, I remember this being put into context when a man was accused of going too far in protecting himself against a burglar in the middle of the night.

Long time ago, but I think the judge had some common sense and reminded everyone that when you come downstairs at 3am still blinking, heart beating like crazy, in thin pyjamas, children upstairs and you meet a guy in thick black jacket, gloves and balaclava, you do not generally say, "Oh excuse me, could you wait while I go and read up on how I'm allowed to defend myself?"

Though these days, you'd probably get charged with hate crime and aggravated assault for assuming he was a criminal, not making him a cup of tea and not helping him to take your stuff out to his car!

Steve

Well, yes, but that doesnt answer whether or not the arrest would stand, meaning the subsequent PC arrest which couldnt have happened without the (illegal as it turned out) citizen's arrest - so would that stand. And thus would the case be thrown out as the arrested was only done so incorrectly?

Otherwise what WOULD there be to stop citizens arrests for littering, dog fouling, whatever else (albeit these are probably FPN crimes and not even summary - but whatever would best fit the bill here?

didds wrote:Well, yes, but that doesnt answer whether or not the arrest would stand, meaning the subsequent PC arrest which couldnt have happened without the (illegal as it turned out) citizen's arrest - so would that stand. And thus would the case be thrown out as the arrested was only done so incorrectly?

Otherwise what WOULD there be to stop citizens arrests for littering, dog fouling, whatever else (albeit these are probably FPN crimes and not even summary - but whatever would best fit the bill here?

whether or not the arrest would stand, meaning the subsequent PC arrest which couldnt have happened without the (illegal as it turned out) citizen's arrest

I'm not a lawyer but I imagine that the official PC arrest would stand, unless of course, the police had specifically asked the first person to (illegally) perform a citizen's arrest. If not, then all acts prior to the police arriving are nothing to do with the police.

Otherwise, it would open a can of worms that would make arrests very difficult. You trip up a mugger being chased by a policeman. Can a lawyer therefore argue that since the subsequent PC arrest couldnt have happened without you tripping him up, the arrest is deemed illegal?

Steve

Thats the poiint Im asking indeed.

If without the illegal citizens arrest the perp would have mad it off on his heels and would "have got away with it" (s)he wouldn't have been arrested by the PC.

As for the trip thats not a citizens arrest of course. And is potentially assault on the person running away.

Cos if an illegal citizens arrest holds for a PC arrest some while later, then there isnt anything to stop illegal CA being made on a multitude of other summary crimes that 9see above) are not intrended to be thus so.

Its all moot debate of course.