News

The case of David Chen continues to generate sputtering outrage in the city of Toronto – indeed, right across the country. Mr. Chen is the Chinatown shopkeeper who allegedly chased down a man who had stolen $60 of plants from his store, tackling the suspect and then tying him up while waiting for the police to arrive. Mr. Chen and two helpers consequently face charges of assault and unlawful confinement (additional charges of kidnapping and concealing a weapon were dropped). The thief got 30 days.

Only in Canada, say the critics, would the shoplifter face a lighter charge than the shopkeeper who nabbed him.

In fact, this is not a case of Canadian wimpiness. Countries around the globe place strict limits on the right of citizen's arrest – and with good reason.

In England and Wales a person may only arrest someone who “is without doubt” committing an offence or whom the person has reasonable grounds of suspecting to be committing an offence. Even then, the arrest is lawful only if it is not practical for a police officer to make the arrest instead; or if the arrested person is damaging property, injuring himself or others; or is escaping before police can catch him.

Malaysian law says that a private citizen may only arrest another who commits a serious offence “in his view.” France and Germany permit citizens to arrest those caught committing a crime in flagrante delicto – red-handed, in other words – as long as they deliver the person to the police as soon as possible.

Canada's law on citizen's arrest law is no limp aberration; it hews closely to these international, near universal, norms. Section 494 of the Criminal Code says that anyone may arrest someone whom he finds escaping from police, or whom he “finds committing an indictable offence” or whom he believes on reasonable grounds has committed a criminal offence. It also gives a property owner the right to arrest someone “whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.”

The lawyer for Mr. Chen wants to challenge the law, broadening it to allow citizen's arrest for crimes that are not necessarily happening right under the citizen's nose. But there is a good reason for that limitation. Mr. Chen tackled the alleged thief when the man returned to the store an hour later. But what if, instead, he had happened on the man a day later – or a week or a month? Would he have been in his rights to tackle him then?

In a case in British Columbia, two men who suspected another of stealing a rifle went to a townhouse and, after an altercation, subdued their suspect. They were charged and convicted of various offences – as they should have been.

In Britain, a boy smashed a window at a fish-and-chip shop. The shop owner and his son grabbed the boy a day later and put him in their car. They were charged with kidnapping. A sympathetic judge dismissed the case, arguing the men acted reasonably in the circumstances. But the case underlined the difficulty in taking the law into one's own hands. If the men could seize a 12-year-old suspect on the street, how long could they detain him? Using what force? Police have to go by established rules when they face such questions. Not so unschooled civilians.

The Chen case may itself be dismissed in time. Given the circumstances – an honest man acting in good faith to protect his livelihood – it seems unlikely a court would hand Mr. Chen much more than a slap on the wrist. But the slap, however gentle, is called for as a warning to other would-be citizen law-enforcers.

As wronged as Mr. Chen may feel, ordinary citizens should not get extra powers to make arrests. Self-appointed citizen cops can easily seize the wrong person, as even the police with all their training sometimes do. We have enough cases of wrongful arrest as it is. Worse, they can hurt the suspect or get seriously hurt themselves.

So if you see someone commit a crime before your eyes, fine, seize him and deliver him to the cops. Otherwise, take a deep breath and call 911.