didds wrote: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
Rather like the interpretation of what is considered reasonable force in defending yourself.
Many years ago, I remember this being put into context when a man was accused of going too far in protecting himself against a burglar in the middle of the night.
Long time ago, but I think the judge had some common sense and reminded everyone that when you come downstairs at 3am still blinking, heart beating like crazy, in thin pyjamas, children upstairs and you meet a guy in thick black jacket, gloves and balaclava, you do not generally say, "Oh excuse me, could you wait while I go and read up on how I'm allowed to defend myself?"
Though these days, you'd probably get charged with hate crime and aggravated assault for assuming he was a criminal, not making him a cup of tea and not helping him to take your stuff out to his car!
Steve