Written notes (4)

- The powers and immunities of private security personnel are often unclear and inconsistent, dependent upon fine distinctions, differ from jurisdiction, and differ markedly from those of the public police even though security personnel are often carrying out many of the same tasks in the same precincts. - The rules regarding the protection of property and citizen's arrest, for example, bear this out. - Police and security officers provide an essential service in protecting people from crime and violence. - differences between security personnel and police in education, employment status and pay. - significant growth in electronic surveillance, monitoring and cash-in-transit services for the - Australians, across all jurisdictions, are becoming increasingly reliant, if not dependent, on private security services. - Consequently, regulation is needed in protecting the public from malpractice. - successful private sector partnerships are found where that sector is filling a need that assists the public police to perform their role as peace keepers. - While police have a democratic duty to provide protection and law enforcement universally, private security personnel focus on supplying risk protection based on financial incentive. - even with high levels of cooperation in the sports arena market, public/private cooperative services may be overlaid by their commercial and potentially partial focus. - Not only is it possible to use public/private police cooperation to deliver safe and comfortable environments but, arguably, such cooperation is now imperative. False imprisonment Elements: The tort of false imprisonment involves a direct and intentional or careless total confinement of the plaintiff within an area fixed by the defendant, without legal justification or statutory authority. There has to be an intention to detain. There has to be an absence of reasonable means of escape (can be mental coercion and physical) and an absence of lawful justification/consent. ✓ Symes v Mahon [1922] SASR 447: Case: Symes v Mahon (1922). Police officer informed P there was a warrant for his arrest, and he must accompany him to Adelaide. P went to Adelaide with D, but in a different compartment the next morning. P checked into a hotel and took the tram with D to the police court. P discovered he was not in fact the person named in

the warrant. Held - falsely imprisoned. ... where there has no application of physical force to the person ͞