Security guards across Canada now have more discretion in arresting shoplifters thanks to the federal government’s decision to change the country’s citizen’s arrest laws. Outside that particular profession, this move by the Stephen Harper government will affect few Canadians and do nothing to drive down crime rates.
The story is well-known by now — the impetus behind the move comes from the case of storeowner David Chen of Toronto who chased and tied up a man who had stolen some plants from his Lucky Moose Food Mart in May 2009. Chen was actually charged by the police with forcible confinement and assault, but was later found not guilty. At issue was the fact Chen detained the thief an hour after the actual theft took place.
Beyond what we see in the movies and sometimes on TV, a citizen’s arrest has very little practical value in everyday life. Yes, any citizen who witnesses a criminal act in progress can in theory interject and arrest that person without warrant. But there are very strict limitations on when a citizen’s arrest applies. The Harper government has loosened one restriction with its proposed legislation — any person can arrest another in a “reasonable period of time” after witnessing someone committing a criminal act. Under the current legislation, the person has to essentially be caught red-handed.
But little else has changed. Yes, you can follow a person who you’ve seen commit a criminal act and arrest them within a “reasonable period of time” if the legislation passes, but if you lose sight of that person for one second, you have lost the ability to arrest that individual. It is a fact drilled into security guards with private companies, who can only enact a citizen’s arrest as they are not peace officers.
But the natural question, and one being surreptitiously fed to the public by police forces across the country is why would you want to? A guard catching a shoplifter at the local department store is one thing, but personally chasing down someone after witnessing a crime is something most Canadians can’t fathom, in part because of the inherent risk. What if this person has a weapon or a violent history? How is the average citizen going to handle that situation? The answer, backed up by the police, is they shouldn’t have to. The police are trained to make arrests. The average Canadian is not.
And where is the line between a citizen’s arrest and outright assault and vigilantism? Chen’s ordeal was a clear case of a storeowner catching a thief. But in what other circumstances will the arrest apply? Albertans might remember the story of Tees-area farmer Russell Knight who, when some thieves tried to steal his quad in March 2009, took it upon himself to chase down one of them down and shot him in the back. Knight had already liberated his ATV and the thief, Harold Groening, was trying to get away on foot. Groening survived and Knight only last month pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm. He will be sentenced in May. This case is one in which no claim of a citizen’s arrest could ever be made.
The media reports the Harper government followed Chen’s case closely, and only after he had been found not guilty did they swoop in with amendments. The Tories are trying to gain favour in the Greater Toronto Area with election fever running high, so no one can say this case wasn’t about publicity. The changes simply don’t warrant the fanfare they’ve been given. For average Canadians, the government’s move does little to ensure their own personal safety.
