Your sincere comments please,
Terry Disterheft

If you stop and hold someone you are arresting them.

The whole idea of David Chen perusing, arresting and imprisoning the subject is no different from a LPO for perusing a subject past the entrance door, stopping and then placing them in a room or caged area in the security office.

The ONLY difference is that CHEN’s actions were after the fact and that he had reasonable grounds to believe based on history that the subject was going to commit a crime.

The onus is on the property owner or their agent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the arrest is legit and there are both criminal and civil remedies available for wrongful arrest.

The only caveat I would place here is that security companies provide better training in law before their wannabe cops/guards go around arresting little old ladies.

In British Columbia security personnel can undergo additional training in the Use Of Force and become licensed to use specific handcuffs for securing subjects.

I don’t actually think that Chen has any right to a citizens arrest under s.494(1)- I would argue that because of the language of s.494, and parliaments deliberate decision in s.494(1) (a) only to include indictable offenses- not summary and not hybrid- Chen should not have any rights to a citizens arrest under s.494.

I know that hybrid offenses are deemed for the purpose of s.494 to be indictable (R v. Huff). But in that case the individual being placed under citizens arrest was being arrested for dangerous driving; which is much closer to the borderline between summary/hybird. (Not to mention being placed under arrest by a police officer from a different jurisdiction)

I don’t know the circumstances of how Bennet ended up with jail time on these facts- but as you mentioned 30 days is a shockingly harsh sentence for a $60 theft. But this is still only a fraction (just under 1/12th) of the maximum penalty for a summary conviction (as laid out by CC s.787(1)). In a case where the crime is so clearly a summary offense, it is hard to believe that parliament’s intention was to give a citizen the right to arrest another citizen committing petty theft.

I think the CROWN is silly in the way it interpret the law. First, David Chen catching the thief is not the same as person A catching person B on the street for no reason. Second, the catching is the continuing part of stopping theft in the store. If David Chen has right to stop the thief from his store, he should have the right to chase him when the thief refuses to stay in store waiting for police officers come to the site, and David chen should have the right to hold the thief’s arm if the thief refuses to wait for police officers come to handle the case.

Someone may argue that the thief has human right. Yes, he has his right, but when his right violeted other people’s right, the thief’s should lost part of his right. He stole other people’s porperties, then he should lost part of his freedom right and remain in the site till police officer come to handle. If he runs away, he should lost part of his right and should allow others to hold his arms.