Security Over Stepping The Line

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
Manta
250 or more caches found
250 or more caches found
Posts: 52
Joined: 05 June 03 5:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Manta » 31 January 05 8:36 pm

Great idea.
<P> For the activity we could place him in a cache and conveniently lose the co-ordinates....

Lt. Sniper
Outdoor Adventurer
Posts: 751
Joined: 12 April 04 11:27 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by Lt. Sniper » 31 January 05 9:05 pm

Manta wrote:And this coming from the state who's police force brought us the "shoot first ask questions later" principle?
ROFL, I so wanted to say that(exact quote) before but I thought I better keep it to myself :twisted:

dak's Emu Mob
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
Posts: 443
Joined: 21 September 03 7:27 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by dak's Emu Mob » 31 January 05 9:44 pm

zactyl wrote: . . . young punks from vandalising the place... you fit the profile Lt Sniper.
<p>
Yeah! I've met Lt Sniper, and I'd say he was a young punk! :twisted:
<p>
I'll take my tongue out of my cheek now. :wink:
<p>
dak

User avatar
Bronze
Posts: 2372
Joined: 15 July 03 11:48 pm
Location: Toronto, NSW

Post by Bronze » 31 January 05 11:20 pm

tolmh wrote:They cannot require you to answer questions, to provide information about yourself...
Have a quick look at the "Enclosed Lands Protection Act" in NSW, Act and Qld. I have worked in these states. If the security provider is directly contracted by the land owner or their agent then they therefore have the landowners powers to ask and have answered their identity. The trespasser does not have to provide this information immeadiately if a rego plate* is available but can request the police to be present when they do or the police can forward that information post instance. *Saves conflict on the bahalf of the landholder

This is the ACT version but most other states are similar in their purpose and wording.
6 Requirement to give name etc
(1) If the owner, occupier or person in charge of enclosed lands believes on reasonable grounds that another person is committing an offence against this Act, he or she may require that other person to give his or her full name and residential address.
(2) A person shall not fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (1).
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/194 ... 1943-5.pdf

Shopping Centres tend to use this a lot for frequent offenders for example. Even if the centre is public access it is still classed as private property. Interestingly Shopping Centres in NSW (not sure about Qld.) can only restrict entry if they can secure and do not trade for a 24 hours period each year. Few tend to use this legal option because of expense just to restrict a few individuals. Also if the shopping centre has a chemist or medical centre they cannot restrict access to any person unless that person has an AVO against an employee at either establishment. But I digress.

Yes - My point is that there are so many if's and but's. It's best for the cacher to remain calm and co-operative, the security officer to know their rights and the police to not have to be involved - but that would all happen in the "perfect world".

One last point:
I would not want to see cachers in this forum see security providers as the enemy in any way. This is one bad apple, and yes there are more but the good ones you just don't see. Because they observe and report. They are protecting you cars in shopping centres, keeping your proces down in GoLo and Partoling your house when you on holidays. It a necessary evil and if wasn't a need for it insurance agencies wouldn't stipulate it.

Security work is unrewarding, often solitary and sometimes when you least expect it dangerious. Cachers are indeed suspicious. Just think about how we approach our cache. I dread playgrounds because I don't want the police to turn up on my door and ask why was I on my back looking under a kiddies slide yesterday. Employees often approach different and difficult situations with little professional training and usually need sleep or a bit more public support. The hours aren't regulated like the trucking industry and so you have a combination of public interaction (ever worked retail :?), tiredness, coffee and power.

Please take a step back next time you meet an agro security officer. Offer him a coffee, explain to him what your doing - he might even guard your cache or enjoy watching, meeting other cachers accessing it and will know what and why you are there. I reality if they are there and you are there then who is in the wrong. Rarely do security patrol public land - this domain is surely only police and rangers. You nver know - we might even end up saving a couple of their souls in this new form of relaxation.

Imagine that :roll: Security Patrols logging caches while they drive around :lol:

The Bronze.

Citria
50 or more caches found
50 or more caches found
Posts: 39
Joined: 14 August 04 3:31 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by Citria » 01 February 05 12:13 am

Hey Lt Sniper, you punk you, ... what does ROFL mean?? :?

dak's Emu Mob
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
Posts: 443
Joined: 21 September 03 7:27 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by dak's Emu Mob » 01 February 05 12:27 am

Citria wrote:Hey Lt Sniper, you punk you, ... what does ROFL mean?? :?
<p>
Rolling On Floor Laughing.
<p>
Cheers,
<p>
dak

Manta
250 or more caches found
250 or more caches found
Posts: 52
Joined: 05 June 03 5:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Manta » 01 February 05 12:30 am

Bronze wrote:One last point:
I would not want to see cachers in this forum see security providers as the enemy in any way. This is one bad apple, and yes there are more but the good ones you just don't see. Because they observe and report. They are protecting you cars in shopping centres, keeping your proces down in GoLo and Partoling your house when you on holidays. It a necessary evil and if wasn't a need for it insurance agencies wouldn't stipulate it.
Well said, Bronze. It was unfortunate that Sniper happened across the domain of a particularly evil troll who needs to be, shall we say, "re-educated". I used do security work myself, spanning armoured car escort to VIP protection, and I tell no lie when I say I was often more scared of my colleagues than I was of the people we were trying to guard against. There are some complete UNITS working in the industry and often they only have jobs because the proprietors of certain firms are only marginally more sociable and intelligent beasts than their troglodite staff and they like to employ similar species.<P>

However, that being said, the majority of security personnel are simply men and women who have high regard for the public, personal property and the rights of all. They do work crap hours, they do get tired and they do sometimes make errors of judgement but, in the main, they go about their difficult task with little fuss and are more than happy to have an incident-free shift and go home, safely, to their families.<P>

I'm not condoning the actions of Sniper's guard but I'm merely offering my support and thanks to those officers who are out there doing a good job. The guy at Sniper's estate? He shouldn't be in security. No question about it. With his attitude he's going to hurt someone and end up at the wrong end of a barrister.
<P>
Just my opinion...

Citria
50 or more caches found
50 or more caches found
Posts: 39
Joined: 14 August 04 3:31 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by Citria » 01 February 05 12:38 am

:shock: I don't want to end up at anyone's end!!

Thanks for the clarification Dak.

tolmh
Posts: 145
Joined: 10 April 03 8:19 pm
Location: Canberra, ACT
Contact:

Post by tolmh » 01 February 05 1:59 pm

Bronze wrote:Have a quick look at the "Enclosed Lands Protection Act" in NSW, Act and Qld. I have worked in these states. If the security provider is directly contracted by the land owner or their agent then they therefore have the landowners powers to ask and have answered their identity.
Only if the land owner believes on reasonable grounds that the person is committing an offence against the Act. The Act contains just three offences - entering enclosed (or inclosed, depending on the State) lands without lawful excuse, leaving a gate or slip panel down, and leaving a gate or slip panel on a road down.

Assuming you're not prancing about leaving gates open, that leaves entering without a lawful excuse. Supreme Courts in various States have grappled with the issue of what constitutes a lawful excuse with respect to the various Enclosed (or Inclosed) Land Protection Acts (see DPP v Willie (1999) NSW 661; Hancock v Birsa (1972) WAR 177; Pryce v Martin (1986) NT FLR 258) and I'd warrant that determining whether or not an excuse like "sorry, I didn't realise that these are enclosed lands" was lawful is well beyond the means of the average security provider, especially given that this “can only be determined after a full and thorough examination of all the factsÂâ€

User avatar
Aushiker
350 ? I am the lizard queen
350 ? I am the lizard queen
Posts: 1397
Joined: 30 July 04 2:35 pm
Twitter: Aushiker
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Post by Aushiker » 01 February 05 2:12 pm

tolmh wrote:
Only if the land owner believes on reasonable grounds that the person is committing an offence against the Act. The Act contains just three offences - entering enclosed (or inclosed, depending on the State) lands without lawful excuse, leaving a gate or slip panel down, and leaving a gate or slip panel on a road down.
At last some informed discussion :) .... Thanks to Bronze, Team Piggy and tolmh for adding some knowledge and reason to the discussion.

Andrew

User avatar
Aushiker
350 ? I am the lizard queen
350 ? I am the lizard queen
Posts: 1397
Joined: 30 July 04 2:35 pm
Twitter: Aushiker
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Post by Aushiker » 01 February 05 2:18 pm

Hi tolmh

Just one comment/question. As these where I assume Supreme Court decisons, their applicablity in the first instance would be limited to the relevant jurisdiction. Is that correct?

If so, have there been any Queensland or Western Australian Supreme Court decisions that you are aware of?

Thanks
Andrew

Manta
250 or more caches found
250 or more caches found
Posts: 52
Joined: 05 June 03 5:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Manta » 01 February 05 3:36 pm

Aushiker wrote:At last some informed discussion :) .... Thanks to Bronze, Team Piggy and tolmh for adding some knowledge and reason to the discussion.

Andrew
Whilst the rest of us may not have the resources or the inclination to quote case law, sections of legislation or by-laws into this thread, we still have a right to express our views, without being accused of being uninformed or unreasonable.<P>
I agree there has been a wealth of information provided by certain people but your specific mention of Bronze, Team Piggy and tolmh indicates you may consider the rest of our contributions unworthy of this topic.<P>
I'm not quite sure what you meant by the above comment, Andrew, but it certainly could be misconstrued. :)

User avatar
Aushiker
350 ? I am the lizard queen
350 ? I am the lizard queen
Posts: 1397
Joined: 30 July 04 2:35 pm
Twitter: Aushiker
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Post by Aushiker » 01 February 05 3:53 pm

Manta wrote: I'm not quite sure what you meant by the above comment, Andrew, but it certainly could be misconstrued. :)
I am sure it could be and so be it. I didn't go through the whole thread to select various postings but I did find the aforementioned posters to have added some informed value to the discussion from my perspective and I thought they where considered responses, thus I mentioned them in particular. I am sure there where others, but they didn't jump out at me at the time of writing.

To me there is a lot of value in informed postings on a topic such as this. I have learnt quite a bit about the law in this regard.

I also didn't mention the humorous postings, but to me they stand out on their own just for there humorous contribution which I always assume is valued added, well almost.

My apologies Manta if I offended you, that was not my intention.

Regards
Andrew

tolmh
Posts: 145
Joined: 10 April 03 8:19 pm
Location: Canberra, ACT
Contact:

Post by tolmh » 01 February 05 5:48 pm

Aushiker wrote: Just one comment/question. As these where I assume Supreme Court decisons, their applicablity in the first instance would be limited to the relevant jurisdiction. Is that correct?
Not necessarily. For example, Pryce v Martin was a matter in the NT, but the court made reference to Hancock v Birsa, which was a West Australian matter. There are even references to Hancock v Birsa in Papua New Guinea case law (see here for an example.)

For balance, you might also want to consider some cases where the courts found that areas that I'd consider to be pretty tenuouosly fenced off to be enclosed land. For example, DPP v Butterworths in NSW found that a construction site roped off with orange plastic and pickets was enclosed land, in stark contrast with more lax rulings described earlier where three fences and a gate weren't enough. The lesson to take away is that the courts really will consider matters of trespass on a case by case basis, and it won't do you much good to say 'but in Pryce...' when you slipped through a hole in the fence at a construction site.

There are a host of other complexities (for example, about whether an absence of a lawful excuse is the same as having an unlawful purpose and so on). It really is complicated, and my point was more that a security provider was unlikely to be in a position to determine whether he should wallop somebody who doesn't tell him their name or not, rather than to say 'if you ever get bailed up, quote this stuff in court'.

Your best bet is to not be someplace you're not supposed to be in the first place! It's one thing to sit here and play armchair lawyer. It's another to find yourself on the pointy end of a dog and a Maglite-wielding nutjob. If you feel you've been grievously wronged, take action through the police or the courts, not at the scene.

Follow the Bronze's and others' advice in the short term - stay calm, follow orders, get to safety. These guys have been on the other end, so they know what they're talking about. The only security work I ever did was a three-day stint at a Pacific Rim tourism thingy in Townsville for some beer money at uni. ;)

crew 153
9000 or more caches found
9000 or more caches found
Posts: 1096
Joined: 09 October 04 7:51 pm
Location: Calamvale, Brisbane
Contact:

Post by crew 153 » 01 February 05 6:22 pm

The current area in question is an extension to a currently populated residential estate. There is no signage on the roads to indicate that the area is public land. In fact I'm sure that the developers would encourage potential purchasers to enter the area.

I was approached by a police patrol looking for the same cache. I said I was Geocaching and had to explain it to the officers. They at no time indicated that I was on private property or that I should leave the area. They just told me to enjoy myself and left.

Admittedly this was during the day.

Post Reply