Security Over Stepping The Line
- Team Piggy
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: 02 April 03 5:16 pm
- Location: South Australia
Basic rule in life: Treat People how you would like them to treat you...
The guard sounds like he started badly.. He spoke personally rather than speaking from a position of authority. (Which is yet to be decided if he had that power anyway).
The guard was well within his rights to ask what he did : IF he was acting on behalf of the property owner.
How many people know their law ?
Lets say that guard DID have the right to be there, and was protecting the area for the owner of the land.
Yes. He can ask you for your name & Address, But only if he identifies himself as being in control or securing (protecting) that portion of land.
As a sideline (good to remember this one kids).. If he has asked for your identity, you can also request the identity of the owner of the land/item where trespass is occuring.
He has to supply it to comply with australian law.
Heres some boring old laws for you to read, this is the SA one, but most states/territories are the same.
Trespassers on premises
(1) Where
(a) a person trespasses on premises; and
(b) the nature of the trespass is such as to interfere with the enjoyment of the premises by the occupier; and
(c) the trespasser is asked by an authorised person to leave the premises,
the trespasser is, if he or she fails to leave the premises forthwith or again trespasses on the premises within 24 hours of being asked to leave, guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $2 500 or imprisonment for 6 months.
(2) A person who, while trespassing on premises, uses offensive language or behaves in an offensive manner is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $1 250.
(2a) A person who trespasses on premises must, if asked to do so by an authorised person, give his or her name and address to the authorised person.
Maximum penalty: $1 250.
(2b) An authorised person, on asking a trespasser to leave premises or to give a name and address, must, if the trespasser so requests, inform the trespasser of
(a) the authorised person's name and address; and
(b) the capacity in which the person is an authorised person under this section.
(2c) A person must not falsely pretend, by words or conduct, to have the powers of an authorised person under this section.
Maximum penalty: $750.
(3) In this section
authorised person, in relation to premises, means
(a) the occupier, or a person acting on the authority of the occupier;
(b) where the premises are the premises of a school or other educational institution or belong to the Crown or an instrumentality of the Crown, the person who has the administration, control or management of the premises, or a person acting on the authority of such a person;
occupier, in relation to premises, means the person in possession, or entitled to immediate possession, of the premises;
offensive includes threatening, abusive or insulting;
premises means
(a) any land; or
(b) any building or structure; or
(c) any aircraft, vehicle, ship or boat.
(4) In proceedings for an offence against this section, an allegation in the complaint that a person named in the complaint was on a specified date an authorised person in relation to specified premises will be accepted as proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Bottom line.
Sniper should have been informed that the guard was in charge of that particular section of property, and the guard was acting on behalf of the owners.
It does not matter why Sniper was there, it's irrelevant to the situation. If it was "privately owned property" then Sniper was trespassing, but could only be charged with this if he failed to leave / or returned within 24 hours.
The fact that he apparently "blocked" the way opens another can of worms, that is borderline on detainment, lets not go there.
The nice doggie slobbering on your arm, well, thats again, intimidation with a weapon... Lets not enter that either, thats a messy road when you start talking power of force etc, threat escalations etc..
This thread could really get long winded.
I still suggest giving the owner/ or company that employs Donut (the guard) and lodging a complaint, I would follow that up with a letter to the tribunal to have him disciplined over his actions, and possibly score a nice retraining session to act more like a professional security guard should..
Oh.. I still find the best reply when asked whats in your bag/car is: "An anti-tank missile launcher" or "3 kilo's of dog poo.." Or if you want the sure fire one to get Donuts (I mean guards) riled right up : "Some of your wife's lingerie" boom boom..works every time...
Cheers.
The guard sounds like he started badly.. He spoke personally rather than speaking from a position of authority. (Which is yet to be decided if he had that power anyway).
The guard was well within his rights to ask what he did : IF he was acting on behalf of the property owner.
How many people know their law ?
Lets say that guard DID have the right to be there, and was protecting the area for the owner of the land.
Yes. He can ask you for your name & Address, But only if he identifies himself as being in control or securing (protecting) that portion of land.
As a sideline (good to remember this one kids).. If he has asked for your identity, you can also request the identity of the owner of the land/item where trespass is occuring.
He has to supply it to comply with australian law.
Heres some boring old laws for you to read, this is the SA one, but most states/territories are the same.
Trespassers on premises
(1) Where
(a) a person trespasses on premises; and
(b) the nature of the trespass is such as to interfere with the enjoyment of the premises by the occupier; and
(c) the trespasser is asked by an authorised person to leave the premises,
the trespasser is, if he or she fails to leave the premises forthwith or again trespasses on the premises within 24 hours of being asked to leave, guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $2 500 or imprisonment for 6 months.
(2) A person who, while trespassing on premises, uses offensive language or behaves in an offensive manner is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $1 250.
(2a) A person who trespasses on premises must, if asked to do so by an authorised person, give his or her name and address to the authorised person.
Maximum penalty: $1 250.
(2b) An authorised person, on asking a trespasser to leave premises or to give a name and address, must, if the trespasser so requests, inform the trespasser of
(a) the authorised person's name and address; and
(b) the capacity in which the person is an authorised person under this section.
(2c) A person must not falsely pretend, by words or conduct, to have the powers of an authorised person under this section.
Maximum penalty: $750.
(3) In this section
authorised person, in relation to premises, means
(a) the occupier, or a person acting on the authority of the occupier;
(b) where the premises are the premises of a school or other educational institution or belong to the Crown or an instrumentality of the Crown, the person who has the administration, control or management of the premises, or a person acting on the authority of such a person;
occupier, in relation to premises, means the person in possession, or entitled to immediate possession, of the premises;
offensive includes threatening, abusive or insulting;
premises means
(a) any land; or
(b) any building or structure; or
(c) any aircraft, vehicle, ship or boat.
(4) In proceedings for an offence against this section, an allegation in the complaint that a person named in the complaint was on a specified date an authorised person in relation to specified premises will be accepted as proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Bottom line.
Sniper should have been informed that the guard was in charge of that particular section of property, and the guard was acting on behalf of the owners.
It does not matter why Sniper was there, it's irrelevant to the situation. If it was "privately owned property" then Sniper was trespassing, but could only be charged with this if he failed to leave / or returned within 24 hours.
The fact that he apparently "blocked" the way opens another can of worms, that is borderline on detainment, lets not go there.
The nice doggie slobbering on your arm, well, thats again, intimidation with a weapon... Lets not enter that either, thats a messy road when you start talking power of force etc, threat escalations etc..
This thread could really get long winded.
I still suggest giving the owner/ or company that employs Donut (the guard) and lodging a complaint, I would follow that up with a letter to the tribunal to have him disciplined over his actions, and possibly score a nice retraining session to act more like a professional security guard should..
Oh.. I still find the best reply when asked whats in your bag/car is: "An anti-tank missile launcher" or "3 kilo's of dog poo.." Or if you want the sure fire one to get Donuts (I mean guards) riled right up : "Some of your wife's lingerie" boom boom..works every time...
Cheers.
- Team Piggy
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: 02 April 03 5:16 pm
- Location: South Australia
Oh, For anyone interested in a site detailing Australian LAW stuff head to:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html#sa
http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html#sa
Hmmm perhaps the guard could have done it this way.
Get attention of Lt sniper and when stopped ask them if they realise they are on private property?
Solves all problems
Security guard is polite (the dog should remain calm as long as the guard does).
Suspect person is given the opportunity to leave without hassle (and if they are found on said lands again, No excuses!)
Everyone happy
The security guard has broken several laws (in NSW) and should at the very least face action from his employer.
That behaviour gives the security industry a bad name.
Damian
Get attention of Lt sniper and when stopped ask them if they realise they are on private property?
Solves all problems
Security guard is polite (the dog should remain calm as long as the guard does).
Suspect person is given the opportunity to leave without hassle (and if they are found on said lands again, No excuses!)
Everyone happy
The security guard has broken several laws (in NSW) and should at the very least face action from his employer.
That behaviour gives the security industry a bad name.
Damian
- Team Piggy
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: 02 April 03 5:16 pm
- Location: South Australia
-
- Outdoor Adventurer
- Posts: 751
- Joined: 12 April 04 11:27 pm
- Location: Brisbane
- Team Piggy
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: 02 April 03 5:16 pm
- Location: South Australia
-
- 50 or more caches found
- Posts: 437
- Joined: 10 December 04 4:24 pm
- Location: West Oz
- Contact:
I just wondered a couple of things about those 'laws'.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Why can a regular joe/jill get fined more for NOT giving his/her personal details to anyone (who could be trying to steal their identity-theres many many nutjobs out there), than someone 'pretending' to be a person in authority?? How does that happen?? And as far as I am concerned- BEFORE I would hand over my ID to ANYONE, I would ask them for theirs first to make sure they were even 'qualified' to be asking me for it. <br>
<br>
Marie.
<br>
<br>2c) A person must not falsely pretend, by words or conduct, to have the powers of an authorised person under this section.
Maximum penalty: $750.
<br>
<br>2a) A person who trespasses on premises must, if asked to do so by an authorised person, give his or her name and address to the authorised person.
Maximum penalty: $1 250.
<br>
Why can a regular joe/jill get fined more for NOT giving his/her personal details to anyone (who could be trying to steal their identity-theres many many nutjobs out there), than someone 'pretending' to be a person in authority?? How does that happen?? And as far as I am concerned- BEFORE I would hand over my ID to ANYONE, I would ask them for theirs first to make sure they were even 'qualified' to be asking me for it. <br>
<br>
Marie.
- Aushiker
- 350 ? I am the lizard queen
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: 30 July 04 2:35 pm
- Twitter: Aushiker
- Location: Fremantle, WA
- Contact:
A more correct URL is http://www.austlii.edu.au/ as your one Team Piggy is only to SA. The other thing to consider is case law which interprets the legislation or is "law" when there is no legislation and also there may be relevant regulations.Team Piggy wrote:Oh, For anyone interested in a site detailing Australian LAW stuff head to:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html#sa
It should also be remembered that this is a State legislation issue and so may or may not be the same across states.
Regards
Andrew
- Aushiker
- 350 ? I am the lizard queen
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: 30 July 04 2:35 pm
- Twitter: Aushiker
- Location: Fremantle, WA
- Contact:
Ahh, but if IIRC my first year law, there is a difference between precedent and reference (can't remember the proper term). It seems that the Courts in the other jurisdictions have referenced the other Courts BUT the other Courts rulings have no authority outside of their jurisdiction.tolmh wrote: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.)
Regards
Andrew
- Aushiker
- 350 ? I am the lizard queen
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: 30 July 04 2:35 pm
- Twitter: Aushiker
- Location: Fremantle, WA
- Contact:
Hi
Just to add to the discussion from a WA perspective. The following is Section 49 of the Police Act 1892. Note that I haven't checked the Case Law or the Regulations, but it is still interesting reading [my highlights]:
"Police and property owners may apprehend offenders; police may search vehicles and people for stolen property
Any person found committing any offence punishable in a summary manner may be taken into custody without a warrant by any officer or constable of the Police Force, or may be apprehended by the owner of the property on or with respect to which the offence shall be committed, or by his servant, or any person authorised by him, and may be detained until he can be delivered into the custody of a constable, to be dealt with according to law; and every police officer or constable may also stop, search, and detain any cart, carriage, or vehicle, in or upon which there shall be reason to suspect that anything stolen or unlawfully obtained may be found, and also any person who may be reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner anything stolen or unlawfully obtained; and any person to whom any property or liquor shall be offered to be sold, pawned, or delivered (if he shall have reasonable cause to suspect that any offence has been committed with respect to such property or liquor, or that the same, or any part thereof, has been stolen, or otherwise unlawfully obtained, or is intended to be used for an unlawful purpose), may apprehend and detain the person offering any such property or liquor as aforesaid, and as soon as may be deliver him into the custody of a constable, together with such property or liquor, to be dealt with according to law; and every person taken into custody without warrant for any offence against the provisions of this Act, or for any offence punishable in a summary manner, shall be detained in custody until he can be brought before a Justice to be dealt with according to law or until he shall have given bail for his appearance before a Justice in manner hereinbefore provided."
Of particular interest, other than the interesting language, is the power of the property owner or the the owner's servant, to detained a person if found commiting an offence."
Regards
Andrew
[/b]
Just to add to the discussion from a WA perspective. The following is Section 49 of the Police Act 1892. Note that I haven't checked the Case Law or the Regulations, but it is still interesting reading [my highlights]:
"Police and property owners may apprehend offenders; police may search vehicles and people for stolen property
Any person found committing any offence punishable in a summary manner may be taken into custody without a warrant by any officer or constable of the Police Force, or may be apprehended by the owner of the property on or with respect to which the offence shall be committed, or by his servant, or any person authorised by him, and may be detained until he can be delivered into the custody of a constable, to be dealt with according to law; and every police officer or constable may also stop, search, and detain any cart, carriage, or vehicle, in or upon which there shall be reason to suspect that anything stolen or unlawfully obtained may be found, and also any person who may be reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner anything stolen or unlawfully obtained; and any person to whom any property or liquor shall be offered to be sold, pawned, or delivered (if he shall have reasonable cause to suspect that any offence has been committed with respect to such property or liquor, or that the same, or any part thereof, has been stolen, or otherwise unlawfully obtained, or is intended to be used for an unlawful purpose), may apprehend and detain the person offering any such property or liquor as aforesaid, and as soon as may be deliver him into the custody of a constable, together with such property or liquor, to be dealt with according to law; and every person taken into custody without warrant for any offence against the provisions of this Act, or for any offence punishable in a summary manner, shall be detained in custody until he can be brought before a Justice to be dealt with according to law or until he shall have given bail for his appearance before a Justice in manner hereinbefore provided."
Of particular interest, other than the interesting language, is the power of the property owner or the the owner's servant, to detained a person if found commiting an offence."
Regards
Andrew
[/b]
- Team Piggy
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: 02 April 03 5:16 pm
- Location: South Australia
Should still work, It should just highlight the page to SA, but you can scroll up/down to the other sections..Aushiker wrote:A more correct URL is http://www.austlii.edu.au/ as your one Team Piggy is only to SA. The other thing to consider is case law which interprets the legislation or is "law" when there is no legislation and also there may be relevant regulations.Team Piggy wrote:Oh, For anyone interested in a site detailing Australian LAW stuff head to:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html#sa
Regards
Andrew
Has Sniper been arrested yet and thrown into a cell with Big-Tim the sodomist?
-
- Outdoor Adventurer
- Posts: 751
- Joined: 12 April 04 11:27 pm
- Location: Brisbane
No, never been arrested, and thank god I never ran into Big-Tim!Team Piggy wrote:Has Sniper been arrested yet and thrown into a cell with Big-Tim the sodomist?
In school we where given cards for the local law advisor and thatÂ’s one thing I was always glad to keep in my wallet. If you ran into trouble he would basically tell you to co-operate with the police and would go straight out to fix the situation and it was all free of charge. The card becomes invalid once you turn 18 but I think it was a great thing to have. I hope they provide the service to others in Queensland.
- EcoTeam
- 200 or more found
- Posts: 1267
- Joined: 03 April 03 7:57 pm
- Twitter: EEVblog
- Location: Crestwood, NSW
- Contact:
You most likely can't or won't be fined for not giving details.Team Red Devil wrote:I just wondered a couple of things about those 'laws'.<br>
<br><br>2c) A person must not falsely pretend, by words or conduct, to have the powers of an authorised person under this section.
Maximum penalty: $750.
<br><br>2a) A person who trespasses on premises must, if asked to do so by an authorised person, give his or her name and address to the authorised person.
Maximum penalty: $1 250.
<br>
Why can a regular joe/jill get fined more for NOT giving his/her personal details to anyone (who could be trying to steal their identity-theres many many nutjobs out there), than someone 'pretending' to be a person in authority?? How does that happen?? And as far as I am concerned- BEFORE I would hand over my ID to ANYONE, I would ask them for theirs first to make sure they were even 'qualified' to be asking me for it. <br>
<br>
Marie.
You always have the right to remain silent
If the cops come and ask why you didn't provide details, tell them you felt highly intimidated and in fear of your life
Of course you always have the option of acting like an escaped mental patient, even guards will keep their distance then hoping you will go away quietly. Drooling, going crosseyed and talking to a pretend friend may add that touch of realism required
EcoDave