Bus driver sacked OMG

[pete01]

Yes. So basically, self-defence.

Exactly

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[motorbiking]

If he hadn't he would have been hit himself probably

What is interesting is that the tribunal allowed the incorrect opinion of the disciplinary board to stand.

 

[Highway Man]

You must be proud.

It was a joke.. Think on..

 

[noseall]

Wrong law

Explain what you are waffling about? Can you remind us which law you quoted a number of pages back?

If you promise to listen carefully. I will explain the difference between the well established common law defence of reasonable force for self defence and the statutory right of someone using reasonable force to apprehend a criminal.

All ears.

 

[Highway Man]

All ears.

Your problem, you can't blame MBK for that.

 

[noseall]

What if I chase them as they run off?
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.

Chasing a fleeing suspect with a weapon and subsequently using it is highly likely to be considered malice, revenge, or retaliation rather than self-defence in legal terms, particularly if the initial threat has passed.
(Source - CPS)

Anyone else for source?

 

[noseall]

The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.


The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders...".
• Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
• Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.

 

[MNW67]

What is interesting is that the tribunal allowed the incorrect opinion of the disciplinary board to stand.

What is the role of the tribunal. These two paragraphs seem important. They seem to be saying that it was not down to the judge to determine what actually happened, but instead to determine whether the disciplinary board came to a reasonable view about what happened.

61. Miss King submitted that the respondent reached a faulty interpretation of the CCTV. Miss Charalambous puts the respondent’s position on this in her closing note, especially paragraph 7. As I have noted, whilst both parties reminded me that it is not my role to decide what happened, they spent a considerable time reviewing the CCTV and cross examining on what it showed. The claimant submitted that I should find that the respondent’s interpretation of the CCTV was flawed, the respondent that it was correct.

62. My conclusion is that the findings that the Disciplinary and Appeal Managers reached about what the CCTV showed were not faulty and were a reasonable interpretation of the CCTV evidence. Despite extensive cross examination about the CCTV taken on a frame-by-frame basis Miss Giodric maintained her description of what she saw on the CCTV, as reflected in her disciplinary findings, and her explanation as summarised at paragraph 36 was cogent and reasonable. Mrs Dubarry spoke to the CCTV in answering cross examination and again her answers were consistent with her appeal decision and were reasonable.

 

[motorbiking]

What is the role of the tribunal. These two paragraphs seem important. They seem to be saying that it was not down to the judge to determine what actually happened, but instead to determine whether the disciplinary board came to a reasonable view about what happened.

Yes - that feels somehow wrong to me. You?

 

[morqthana]

I'm helping chicken biker with UK law. The bloke is clueless.

Wrong.

 

[Elsa TLC]

he didn't have a weapon?

He was driving a bloody double decker!

 

[morqthana]

Get your own punch lines. I have started so many on here that I am going to have to start charging.
I have brought many quotes to this forum and am finding it irritating that everyone is simply stealing them, I am an amazing brand and as such I have reserved the following quotes.

OMG
I know
Exactly
Reported
Think on..

People may use them with my written consent but I must see the context that they are used first.. Think on...

OMG!

 

[Elsa TLC]

Did you watch the GMB interview I posted?

Post it again. I missed it

 

[fillyboy]

my work here is done.

No it isn't, you'll carry on making a fool of yourself.

 

[MNW67]

Yes - that feels somehow wrong to me. You?

Yes. But it looks like the CCTV evidence is not clear cut. So, I suppose what the judge is saying is that the interpretation by the bus company fell within the range of reasonable interpretations of what happened. And as long as they genuinely believe that interpretation, he had no power to overturn it. Presumably, in a civil court case, say for battery, the judge would have to decide on the balance of probabilities what actually happened. However, this is a tribunal and it looks like the rules are different