In the meantime, the Crown Prosecution Service has now said that any action against BT or Phorm would not be in the public interest, as they had acted under a mistake as to what the law was, they had co-operated, data gathered in the trials had been anonymous, there was no evidence of harm, and any guilty verdict would only result in a nominal fine anyway.

That case regarded protecting one’s family and home. What happens in a situation where your company property or your employees are at risk?

What if you are a business that hires security guards or a night club that engages bouncers, is it right for you to ask them to perform their duties and protect property or patrons? What happens in a situation where a security guard, to prevent a robbery of company goods or protect employees, applies such force so as to permanently injure or, in a worst case scenario, kill an intruder? What really amounts to reasonable force? Not only may that individual face criminal prosecution but he may lose his job on the grounds of gross misconduct.

Also what is your liability in those circumstances since you hired these individuals to perform certain tasks? After all you owe them a duty of care to provide a safe working environment. Does your public liability insurance cover death or injury to members of the public who are in the process of committing a crime and that security guard/bouncer is merely undertaking their role?

Let’s say that your employee’s role was not to apply some force, but they were an ordinary employee at a petrol station or a shop. If a robbery takes place, who protects them?

Interesting times. With the high profile of this case, a security guard or bouncer may think twice before applying force as their liberty may far outweigh any job.

What are your views?