Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
A door supervisor has been caught on camera using a choke-hold on a young customer before dropping him to the floor unconscious at a Croydon pub in Melbourne, Australia.
A video has emerged online of a doorman in a Melbourne pub using a choke hold technique on an 18 year old customer. The pub doorman then seemingly drops the young man to the ground and then drags the unconscious male’s body out to the front door.
The incident unfolded in a pub at Dorset Gardens Hotel, Croydon, in Melbourne’s east, November 14th this year.
Hotel management stated that the teenager was initially kicked out of the pub for being ‘far too rowdy’, but after being ejected the young male then climbed a fence to trespass and regain entry to get back into the bar to rejoin his friends.
When door supervisors noticed they initially started to escort the young man out – but the intoxicated teenager decided to brake free, ran straight back into the bar and poured himself a schooner (beer glass with a capacity of 285 ml).
That’s when the situation seems to have escalated.
The 18-year-old told news reporters that he doesn’t remember what happened next.
Video shows the teenager being put in a choke hold by a doorman (commonly referred to as security guard’s in Australian licensed premises), which witnesses allege knocked him out.
One other doorman can be seen to grab the young males wrist as if to carry out a physical restraint and then lets go of the 18 year olds wrist and this is when the other doorman then lets the young lifeless males body come crashing to the ground where his skull can be heard striking the ground and then the doorman picks him up like a rag doll to be dragged to the front door of the pub.
Pub doorman chokes out young man in Aus pub.
Onlookers told 7 news reporters that they were in shock as they watched the incident unfold.
“Everyone was just like, ‘Whoa, what’s going on’,” witness Louise Bramberry stated.
“He was doing the wrong thing [young male], but I don’t reckon he deserved it.
“To get thrown to the ground and also knocked out … it’s a bit disgusting.”
Hotel management have refused to make further comment due to the ongoing police investigation by Victoria Police, but did confirm that the pub doorman remains on duty.
Dorset gardens Hotel spokesperson
This was an unfortunate incident which could have been handled better. [The door supervisor] has received a written warning, we do not condone his behaviour.”
An Australian man has died in hospital due to a serious assault he received whilst working as a security guard in Caboolture, a town and suburb in Moreton Bay Region, Queensland, Australia.
A 30-year-old man is assisting police with their inquiries following the serious assault of a male security guard inside a shopping centre in Caboolture on the 9th of October.
The incident occurred at around 1.40pm when a male (30), threw a chair at a shopfront in the King Street shopping centre before being approached by a security guard Charles Lewis (38).
The 30 year old man is alleged to have punched the 38-year-old security guard Charles Lewis in the face, with enough force causing him to fall backwards and strike his head on the ground local police have said.
Caboolture security guard Charles Lewis, 38, has died after allegedly being punched.
The victim Mr Lewis had suffered severe head injuries as a result of the one-punch and was transported to the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital in a critical condition.
The 30-year-old man was taken into police custody in Caboolture.
Sadly, Charles Lewis has succumbed to his injuries and has passed away on Tuesday 27th of October at the Royal Brisbane Women’s Hospital due to his injuries.
The 30 year old male was initially charged with serious assault, grievous bodily harm, wilful damage and contravening a domestic violence order.
What is a Domestic Violence Order?
A domestic violence order (DVO) in Australia is an official document issued by the court to stop threats or acts of domestic violence.
A DVO sets out rules that the ‘respondent’ (the person who has committed domestic violence) must obey. It is designed to keep the ‘aggrieved’ (the person who has had violence against them) safe by making it illegal for the respondent to behave in specific ways.
A DVO is a civil court order so it does not appear on an individual’s criminal history.
However, it is a criminal offence to disobey an order, and this will appear on the respondent criminal history.
It is now understood that local prosecutors will seek to upgrade the criminal charges to Manslaughter following the victim’s death.
The 30-year-old man who was charged by police has been remanded in custody and will reappear in Maroochydore Magistrates Court on November 25.
The offence of manslaughter and penalty in Queensland.
Section 303 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (the Criminal Code), provides that a person is guilty of manslaughter when that person unlawfully kills another person in a way that does not constitute murder.
In more general terms, manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a person without intent to kill, usually as a result of a careless, reckless or negligent act, and includes the intentional killing of a person under extreme provocation or when a person’s state of mind has impaired their capacity to understand or to control their actions. In Queensland, the maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for life. Unlike murder, this penalty is not mandatory, so the judge has discretion in what sentence to impose in the particular circumstances of each case.
A Security Guard at a New Zealand shopping mall in Christchurch, South City has been ‘stood down’ temporarily pending an investigation after a video surfaced on a Facebook group page of the security guard tackling a female trespasser.
In the video, taken just before 8pm on Thursday 22nd Oct, the mall security guard asks the female to leave the South City mall and when she refuses, the security guard grabs her and takes her to the ground.
Shortly before the incident the woman was witnessed screaming at the guard, where the security guard shouts at her to “get out of my mall”.
A spokesperson for the management at the South City Shopping mall said the woman had trespassed at the shopping centre and her friend who was also trespassing had made the video which was then shared on Facebook. The video was shared more than 500 times and then taken down quickly after attracting many comments supporting the security guard.
A police spokesperson said two people were taken into custody following the incident. Photo / Facebook
“We have launched an internal investigation and the matter has been referred to police,” a spokesperson said.
“We have asked our security contractor to stand down the employee involved while the incident is fully investigated.”
The woman who filmed the incident said she wanted to show the video to police, and was told they would have to go to a police station and file a report.
Both women went to the police station and were then arrested for trespassing.
South City Mall in central Christchurch
The woman admitted that they had both trespassed at the mall’s Warehouse before, but not from the mall itself.
One of the women said they did walk into The Warehouse briefly, then went back into the mall, but denied either of them stole anything.
A police spokesperson said two people were taken into custody.
Police said they were called to reports of two people behaving aggressively after allegedly being caught shoplifting.
A police spokeswoman said the pair left the mall before police arrived. Police made inquiries and both women into custody.
”Two 21-year-old women are due to appear in Christchurch District Court on October 26 charged with wilful trespass. Other charges are likely.”
They have been charged with willful trespass and will appear in court on October 26.
The security guard has not been reported to police.
A Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officer has been dismissed without notice after a police disciplinary panel concluded he used excessive force on a man in Manchester city centre.
At the misconduct hearing held by GMP yesterday (2 September) it was determined that PC Philip Ellis breached the standards of professional behaviour relating to use of force and that gross misconduct was proven.
The hearing was held following an Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation into a complaint made by a 23-year-old man who was injured when PC Ellis struck him on the head with his baton during his arrest. The incident happened after a disturbance outside a bar on Deansgate Locks in October 2016 and the man required hospital treatment for his injuries.
The IOPC investigation took five months and concluded in March 2017 when the findings and evidence were provided to GMP. In February 2018 the force agreed that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct.
IOPC Regional Director Amanda Rowe said: “Police officers are trained to deal with challenging situations and should only use force when it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable. We found a case to answer that PC Ellis used an excessive amount of force when dealing with the disturbance. Having considered all of the evidence we gathered during our investigation, the panel decided PC Ellis had behaved recklessly and his actions put people at risk.”
At the conclusion of our investigation, IOPC referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service which decided the evidence did not support a criminal prosecution.
PC Ellis will now be placed on the police barred list.
During these difficult and unprecedented times there have been various reports of people wilfully, maliciously and recklessly coughing and spitting on items on retail shelves in supermarkets. This legal blog has been released to clarify the legal aspects of such an offence.
The very act of coughing or spitting on items within retail stores means that the retail supermarket must destroy all of the affected items and clear the entire aisle of the products to which the customer came into contact with. There is also other associated costs, not just from the destruction of food items but also the deep cleaning of the entire supermarket which can be rather costly.
One recent and disgusting attack was carried out by a New Zealand man who filmed himself walking about a retail store coughing and spitting and then uploaded the video to his social media accounts which was copied before the individual concerned deleted the video.
These are NOT pranks, but are heinous acts and as such criminal offences that are deliberate attacks on the public at large and may endanger human life and must be dealt with robustly by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Sheriff Courts.
The COFPFS has already released a statement in connection to this as can be seen below.
Statement from Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
Any reported person who deliberately endangers life, or causes fear and alarm by pretending to do so, including by coughing on or spitting at someone, will be dealt with robustly by Scotland’s prosecution service.
Scotland’s prosecution service will take action to protect public safety at all times and has a range of responses available to tackle unacceptable criminal conduct that may arise during the coronavirus pandemic.
Coughing on or spitting at someone, depending on the circumstances, may be an assault or constitute the crime of culpable and reckless conduct. It is difficult to imagine a more compelling case for prosecution in the public interest.
COPFS is working closely with Police Scotland to ensure the continued effective investigation and prosecution. of crime, properly addressing criminal behaviour that threatens public safety and the safety of our emergency workers.
Friday 3rd of April 2020
There are a number of legal issues surrounding this type of offence. The offender may be attempting to spread an infectious disease which would be held as culpable and reckless conduct as reckless endangerment of the lieges (public) again, held under the common law of Scotland.
What is the law in relation to the destruction of property?
The crime of malicious mischief is that of destroying or damaging the property of another, or interfering with it to the detriment of the owner or lawful possessor. The criminal offence is held under the common law of Scotland and security operatives can arrest for this offence as can any member of the public as a citizens arrest.
The common law crime of malicious damage is the intentional or reckless destruction of or damage to the property of another.
Previous stated cases have held the following to be criminal acts of malicious mischief;
- destroying crops
- killing or injuring animals
- knocking down walls or fences
- wilful fire raising
- switching off electricity supply causing economic loss
The mens rea of the crime in the case of intentional damage consists in the knowledge that the destructive conduct complained of was carried out with complete disregard for, or indifference to, the property or possessory rights of another.
The case of Ward v Robertson, 1938 highlighted;
“It is not essential to the offence of malicious mischief that there should be a deliberate wicked intent to injure another in his property … it is enough if the damage is done by a person who shows a deliberate disregard of, or even indifference to, the property or possessory rights of others”.
Malice does not require proof of spite or of any other form of motive.
What is required in a charge of malicious mischief is a wilful intent to cause injury to the owner or possessor of the property. This injury may be either in the form of physical damage or in the form of patrimonial loss.
The component parts of this type of crime are very few. What is stated is that the property in question must have belonged to or been in the possession of another. That property must have been damaged intentionally or recklessly. There must have been knowledge, or facts from which knowledge can be inferred, that the conduct complained of would cause damage to a third party’s patrimonial rights in the property in question.
That’s the crime of intentionally or recklessly damaging or destroying another person’s property, without permission can take many forms. It can result in physical damage or economic loss.
It’s a crime of commission, not omission. The resulting damage must have been caused by a positive act on the accused’s part.
I can think of no better fit to the deliberate and malicious act of coughing upon or spitting on items that are for sale to the general public, especially during a global pandemic where thousands of live’s have been lost to the Corona virus.
The criminal act can be intentional or reckless. Whether the accused’s intention was to cause damage or loss is something to be inferred or deduced from what’s proved to have been said or done. A reckless act involves conduct carried out with utter disregard of the consequences, when looked at objectively.
For the Crown to prove this charge, the court would have to be satisfied that:
- the accused acted in the way set out in the charge
- he did so intentionally or recklessly
- his actions caused loss or damage to property
- that property belonged to or was in the possession of another person.”
Defining the parameters of Malicious Mischief
Despite the general parameters of malicious mischief these are well understood. In its typical form it consists in intentional or reckless damage to, or destruction of, the corporeal property of another person. As such, malicious mischief is sufficiently broad to embrace the closely related statutory crime of “vandalism”—an offence which was introduced into the law by s.78 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.
Malicious mischief is also broad enough to include fireraising, which could be regarded merely as an aggravated form of causing damage. However, the offence has existed as a distinct crime for centuries, and, even today there are arguments in favour of retaining a separate crime of fireraising, to mark it out as an especially dangerous form of criminal damage.
Prior to the decision of the High Court in HM Advocate v Wilson, 1984 S.L.T. 117, it was accepted that the crime of malicious mischief required damage to, or destruction of, corporeal property. That decision, however, challenged the traditional view of the law, and extended malicious mischief to include causing “patrimonial loss” to a third party by “interfering” with his or her property.
HM Advocate v Wilson 1984 S.L.T. 117
In the case of HM Advocate v Wilson the individual was charged with “wilfully, recklessly and maliciously” activating an emergency stop button on a generator at a power station, as a result of which electricity was stopped leading to economic loss and not physical damage. On appeal the High Court of Judiciary held that ‘damage‘ included shutting off a power station thereby stopping power being produced caused economic loss and therefore was malicious mischief.
The corona virus pandemic is deadly and no one is under any assumptions as to how deadly it can be hence why a national lockdown has been ordered by the UK prime minister and the first minister of Scotland.
You may be slightly confused as it is (as yet) largely unknown in the U.K. and was started 3 short years ago on the 24th of July 2016 by members of the security industry in Singapore who recognised that the men and women, were at the front line of the provision of private security services, went about their role quietly, effectively with very little or no recognition, (sound familiar?).
As a consequence, they established a national day of recognition for these security officers who contributed to the security, welfare and safety of the people of Singapore and its businesses. This has crossed over from Singapore to Australia as well as India and it is growing each year and it is time for us in the U.K. to acknowledge the thousands of professional men and women of the private security industry. This is all door supervisors and security officers working in Governments, Commercial / Private security sectors.
Why the date was selected?
The date has been specifically chosen to represent the 24/7 nature of security work. The eventual goal from many countries around the world is to work together to petition the United Nations and have them formally declare July 24th, each and every year, International Security Officer’s Days to celebrate and recognise the contributions made by the often nameless and unseen thousands of men and women who work long and arduous hours in often harsh conditions to keep us safe.
Why bother celebrating?
You may be forgiven for thinking what is the point of this and what will it actually achieve?
The reality is that every day, security officers and door supervisors put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public from danger and this has seen some great news stories in the media where door supervisors have saved peoples lives by jumping into a river and saving a drunk person from drowning to providing first aid and especially CPR to save a persons life.
The other issue is that security officers and door supervisors have by default become the front line defence against violence, crime and disorder and often have to deal with violent offenders while police forces in the U.K. struggle to attend these incidents due to manpower issue in officer shortfalls. The police cannot guarantee attendance at a 999 call.
This essentially means that security officers and door supervisors have to deal with some of the most violent offenders committing horrific incidents of violence until a police unit can be deployed. In one recent case I had a gentleman who had been assaulted and the police were called.
Two Police Scotland officers attended some three hours after the male had been assaulted and yet this was a 999 call.
There is also a lot to be said for the bravery of these security officers and door supervisors during terrorist attacks such as London Bridge and the heroic acts by Door Supervisors and other members of the public in protecting human life and in doing so, putting their own lives on the line.
The truth is that we have a long way to go in recognition for better quality of training and fit for purpose training in anti terrorism, first aid and many other subjects that we have long complained about to the Security Industry Authority.
Yet, very few people will ever recognise the sacrifices that these brave men and women make and that is precisely why we need to make this happen.
The first step is to simply share this blog post as a very simple first step. The next is to have your company make a statement on their social media and raise awareness. We also need to petition our local MP’s and MSP’s on social media and ask them to share the recognition of the hard working professional men and women of the private security industry. By doing this we help raise a social media platform. We can then start to build upon this local, regionally and nationally to achieve this. This will put direct pressure on the SIA to treat those in the private security industry with the respect that they deserve.
Other things that can be done to raise awareness of ISOD is to use any industry trade associations or professional groups that your are with to post a message of support for ISOD. Also security companies and managers of security companies and especially (ACSA) Approved Contractor Scheme companies can petition the SIA as well as thousands of others to finally give official recognition and show gratitude towards our profession.
Employers can recognise and thank their security officers and door supervisors in their own workplace and the work places they visit while carrying out site visits and tell them that this is the day that their efforts for the year are officially recognised and that you care about them and their work. Another simple way is to send a thank you letter/email to all of your employees thanking them for their hard work and dedication action. I have placed an example letter below that is free for all employers to adapt.
We need to also raise awareness amongst our clients to which security services are provided. This helps grow recognition in professional security provision above those who are not professional security companies and demonstrates that their are great employers out their with great security operatives ready to serve on the front lines of your premises.
Encourage members of the public to recognise and thank these men and women for the work they are doing. A smile and a thank you goes a long way in brightening up the day. When there is enough ground support with most if not all security companies and users declaring 24th July (24/7) as ISOD, we can take the next big step.
Example Letter or Email to be sent to all of your staff…
Happy International Security Officers Day!!
Please see the short video below, that say’s it all.(Insert YouTube Link)
I would like to share just a few moments of your time to share my thoughts of each of you and our team. Your work is 24/7 around the clock and 365 days a year, that you protect, watch over and assess the people and property of *****.Nothing moves in our out of our client’s sites without security approval. There are times that I know that each of you wonder ‘Why do I do this type of work’ and really there is one simple answer “Because you truly care’!
You care about people doing the wrong thing by others. You care about the people that you protect to ensure they can go home safely to their families, even if that means you may not. On this day and every day, be proud of your job and what you do and I just want to say to each of you, Thank You’. We have a fantastic team that I am very proud to be a part of. Each of you, all add so much to a great group of people protecting our clients.
CEO Security Company Ltd
The future of International Security Officers Day
That is to present and build a case to lobby the United Nations to declare 24/7 officially as ISOD, in recognition of the essential nature of security to modern day to day living, functioning in all aspect of life. Much work is needed to help build awareness and most importantly acceptance and recognition of International Security Officers Day.
How do we grow this?
We all need to all work towards getting the United Kingdom Government and devolved Governments to firstly acknowledge the vital contribution of all the professional men and women within the private security industry and to be the sponsoring country in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
To achieve this you can help support the organic growth of ISOD by getting your company, employer, colleagues, friends, anyone and everyone to get behind this? Thank you in advance on behalf of the tens of thousands of largely lowly paid but hard working security officers and door supervisors out there doing their jobs with responsibility and dedication 24/7!
Both Singapore and India have indicated they can be co-sponsor nations and I will be working with counter-parts in those countries as well as others to help build awareness and recognition of ISOD in the U.K.I will, at a later date post some suggestions on what individual companies, users of security services and also governments can do when July 24th next comes around in 2020.
If you wish to help, please get in touch and we can focus on this much needed issue of recognition of the great and brave men and women of the private security industry.
So help us say thank you and show your appreciation by sharing this blog post as far and wide as possible.