The Lemon Fool

my curiosity was sparked by a local report of a woman who had her legs kicked and she was punched once by a man in a car park. I wondered if a citizens arrest could have been made (if anyone was prepared to do it etc), and what exactly a citizens arrest "meant" and how it could be enacted.

So what I found online suggested

* a citizens arrest could include restraint until a police officer arrives ("suitably appropriate" or somesuch wording)
* a citizens arrest can ONLY be made for indictable offences (ie could be prosecuted in a high court)
* a citizens arrest can NOT be made for summary offences (ie would be prosecuted in a magistrates court)
and pertinently here - maybe

* a simple (or similar word) assault is only a summary offense.

Now - I don't know what constitutes a "simple" assault - but IF kicking someone's legs and punching them once such they are not rendered unconsious etc is merely a summary offense this would mean nobody cold make a citizens arrest. Leta loine attempt to detail the assailant.

Does that sound right to more learned peoples here?

A barrister's explanation - not sure it will help!

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/au ... ens-arrest

I don't know about arresting anyone but you are entitled to use reasonable and proportionate force defending yourself or others from a violent attack.

Not sure I would want to get involved and come between a couple having a fight in a car park, however.

It's called simple (or common) assault to differentiate it from aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is usually involves more harm, more violence and may include using a weapon. This webpage might help to understand the difference - it confirms simple assault is a summary offence: https://www.adamlawsolicitors.co.uk/cri ... ce/assault

The law doesn't expect members of the public to be able to distinguish between the different forms of assault easily, so if you perform a citizen's arrest in a situation where the offence might be a summary-only offence or an either-way offence, it would be very unlikely to cause you a problem. You just have to have a reasonable belief that what you witnessed was a serious assualt.

tacpot12 wrote:It's called simple (or common) assault to differentiate it from aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is usually involves more harm, more violence and may include using a weapon. This webpage might help to understand the difference - it confirms simple assault is a summary offence: https://www.adamlawsolicitors.co.uk/cri ... ce/assault

The law doesn't expect members of the public to be able to distinguish between the different forms of assault easily, so if you perform a citizen's arrest in a situation where the offence might be a summary-only offence or an either-way offence, it would be very unlikely to cause you a problem. You just have to have a reasonable belief that what you witnessed was a serious assault.

Is there not some sort of "Good Samaritan" law that protects individuals who get involved in something like that? It gives them some kind of legal immunity, as long as the intervention was reasonable under the circumstances and done in good faith?

didds wrote:my curiosity was sparked by a local report of a woman who had her legs kicked and she was punched once by a man in a car park. I wondered if a citizens arrest could have been made (if anyone was prepared to do it etc), and what exactly a citizens arrest "meant" and how it could be enacted.

So what I found online suggested

* a citizens arrest could include restraint until a police officer arrives ("suitably appropriate" or somesuch wording)
* a citizens arrest can ONLY be made for indictable offences (ie could be prosecuted in a high court)
* a citizens arrest can NOT be made for summary offences (ie would be prosecuted in a magistrates court)
and pertinently here - maybe

* a simple (or similar word) assault is only a summary offense.

Now - I don't know what constitutes a "simple" assault - but IF kicking someone's legs and punching them once such they are not rendered unconsious etc is merely a summary offense this would mean nobody cold make a citizens arrest. Leta loine attempt to detail the assailant.

Does that sound right to more learned peoples here?

I was brought up to believe that a Citizen's arrest could be made for any 'criminal act'.

That is why people used to sit on the burglar, thief, mugger etc till the local Bobby arrived.

It's news to me that it's only where a great deal of violence is used. Who would be brave enough to make a Citizen's arrest in those circumstances?

Steve

PS Re. local bobby, our village had a small police station right up till the 80s!

stevensfo wrote:I was brought up to believe that a Citizen's arrest could be made for any 'criminal act'.

That is why people used to sit on the burglar, thief, mugger etc till the local Bobby arrived.

It's news to me that it's only where a great deal of violence is used. Who would be brave enough to make a Citizen's arrest in those circumstances?

"any 'criminal act"?

So you would attempt to detain someone for littering or spitting in the street? Smoking in a non-smoking area? Speeding or double parking? Being drunk and disorderly in a public place? Loitering or panhandling? Breach of the peace?

And if so can I use force if I encounter some climate change protesters causing an obstruction? Maybe smack them around a bit to ensure compliance with the law??

Lootman wrote:

stevensfo wrote:I was brought up to believe that a Citizen's arrest could be made for any 'criminal act'.

That is why people used to sit on the burglar, thief, mugger etc till the local Bobby arrived.

It's news to me that it's only where a great deal of violence is used. Who would be brave enough to make a Citizen's arrest in those circumstances?

"any 'criminal act"?

So you would attempt to detain someone for littering or spitting in the street? Smoking in a non-smoking area? Speeding or double parking? Being drunk and disorderly in a public place? Loitering or panhandling? Breach of the peace?

And if so can I use force if I encounter some climate change protesters causing an obstruction? Maybe smack them around a bit to ensure compliance with the law??

No, of course you're right. I remember those movies with Charles Bronson as a vigilante.

I guess it all comes down to common sense.

Sitting on a mugger/burglar till plod arrives is a bit different from sitting on somebody littering or smoking.

Steve

stevensfo wrote:

Lootman wrote:"any 'criminal act"?

So you would attempt to detain someone for littering or spitting in the street? Smoking in a non-smoking area? Speeding or double parking? Being drunk and disorderly in a public place? Loitering or panhandling? Breach of the peace?

And if so can I use force if I encounter some climate change protesters causing an obstruction? Maybe smack them around a bit to ensure compliance with the law??

No, of course you're right. I remember those movies with Charles Bronson as a vigilante.

The Death Wish films would never be made now. It is not PC [Deletion].

The Dirty Harry movies would not be made now either.

Lootman wrote:

stevensfo wrote: No, of course you're right. I remember those movies with Charles Bronson as a vigilante.

The Death Wish films would never be made now. It is not PC [Deletion].

The Dirty Harry movies would not be made now either.

Moderator Message:
Risky potential implication removed. - Chris

I bet you £5 the death wish films will be remade, slightly differently though.

Lootman wrote:

stevensfo wrote: No, of course you're right. I remember those movies with Charles Bronson as a vigilante.

The Death Wish films would never be made now. It is not PC [Deletion].

The Dirty Harry movies would not be made now either.

Moderator Message:
Risky potential implication removed. - Chris

I believe it is OK in the USA, under stand your ground laws. In fact they don't even have to be doing anything, you just have to feel threatened.

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

CliffEdge wrote:

Lootman wrote:The Death Wish films would never be made now. It is not PC [Deletion].

The Dirty Harry movies would not be made now either.

Moderator Message:
Risky potential implication removed. - Chris

I bet you £5 the death wish films will be remade, slightly differently though.

Did you miss the John Wick films?

He gets to go around killing everyone - while, black, asian, tall, related to Lilly Allen .... up to and including women with disabilities

servodude wrote:

CliffEdge wrote:I bet you £5 the death wish films will be remade, slightly differently though.

Did you miss the John Wick films? He gets to go around killing everyone - while, black, asian, tall, related to Lilly Allen .... up to and including women with disabilities

And that is the difference. In the Death Wish movies the vengeance was wrought on races that were perceived at that time as being responsible for most of the violent crime in NYC. And such a plot would be deemed too politically risky now, even if the premise was still valid.

Lootman wrote:

servodude wrote:Did you miss the John Wick films? He gets to go around killing everyone - while, black, asian, tall, related to Lilly Allen .... up to and including women with disabilities

And that is the difference. In the Death Wish movies the vengeance was wrought on races that were perceived at that time as being responsible for most of the violent crime in NYC. And such a plot would be deemed too politically risky now, even if the premise was still valid.

Have you actually watched Death Wish?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of-57Ivfwz8
I suspect you might be "projecting" if you think it was about race

servodude wrote:

Lootman wrote:And that is the difference. In the Death Wish movies the vengeance was wrought on races that were perceived at that time as being responsible for most of the violent crime in NYC. And such a plot would be deemed too politically risky now, even if the premise was still valid.

Have you actually watched Death Wish?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of-57Ivfwz8
I suspect you might be "projecting" if you think it was about race

Have I watched it? There were five of them!

May I suggest that you binge watch them all and notice the demographics of the "victims". Hint - they are not Asian grandmothers.

Lootman wrote:

servodude wrote:Have you actually watched Death Wish?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of-57Ivfwz8
I suspect you might be "projecting" if you think it was about race

Have I watched it? There were five of them!

May I suggest that you binge watch them all and notice the demographics of the "victims". Hint - they are not Asian grandmothers.

Yeah they're an interesting snap shot of the time... and fun teen viewing

I think the first had the first roles for both Christopher Guest and Jeff Goldblum (..oh is that what you mean about race ... the rapists? because Jeff ?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erm7QDCl-3s

...but yeah they're not quite as un-PC as John Wick killing a deaf Australian lesbian

servodude wrote:

Lootman wrote:Have I watched it? There were five of them!

May I suggest that you binge watch them all and notice the demographics of the "victims". Hint - they are not Asian grandmothers.

Yeah they're an interesting snap shot of the time... and fun teen viewing

I think the first had the first roles for for both Christopher Guest and Jeff Goldblum (..oh is that what you mean about the race of the rapists? because Jeff ?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erm7QDCl-3s

Those movies had NYC cinema audiences cheering as Bronson "took out the trash".

But these days we see criminals and thugs as victims, so summary justice is out of fashion.

Lootman wrote:

servodude wrote:Yeah they're an interesting snap shot of the time... and fun teen viewing

I think the first had the first roles for for both Christopher Guest and Jeff Goldblum (..oh is that what you mean about the race of the rapists? because Jeff ?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erm7QDCl-3s

Those movies had NYC cinema audiences cheering as Bronson "took out the trash".

But these days we see criminals and thugs as victims, so summary justice is out of fashion.

Interesting take on it. I still think there's a fair bit of it in the movies though (even leaving aside period pieces liek cowboy stuff) Batman remains popular (and oft rebooted), John Wick has taken shed loads and is little more than "getting your own back"" with style

The internet gives us a complete list of the deaths in Death Wish: https://deathwish.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_Kersey%27s_Kill_List
- I'd forgotten he killed Alex Winter in the third one - perhaps with AI we can have Ted (as John Wick) taking revenge on Charlie Bronson for shooting his mate?
..but yeah have a look, I think the trash were a lot more diverse than you remember

servodude wrote:

Lootman wrote:Those movies had NYC cinema audiences cheering as Bronson "took out the trash".

But these days we see criminals and thugs as victims, so summary justice is out of fashion.

the trash were a lot more diverse than you remember

Could be. But at the risk of taking us even more off-topic for the legal board there was the notorious case of Bernhard Goetz, who shot 4 black guys who tried to rob him on the NYC subway in 1984, AKA the "Subway Vigilante". He had massive public support during his trial for attempted murder and eventually served just 8 months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_ ... ict_appeal