Accused of shoplifting/theft falsely or otherwise?

[bigsteve0000]

Clearly JonCris you have an issue with RLP, possibly the security industry as a whole.

 

Yes JC has an issue with RLP, they are conmen and [problematic] and all reasonable people would have a problem with that. I don’t think he has an issue with the security industry as a whole, just incompetence, bad practice and abuse. And again all reasonable people would have a problem with that

 

 

However, as some of the other Hamsters in our family are employed in this industry I find it particularly offensive to see your reference to edit

 

As far as intimidation goes maybe you should try first hand experience of the verbal abuse the guards get whilst doing their job.

 

Hammy

 

first off I’ve had "first hand experience of the verbal abuse the guards get" working pub doors, roadying for a local DJ and 13 years working for the council. Its part of the job, it is a small part of the job, if they cant take the Little abuse they get then a change of career is in order. most people behave in a reasonable manner with the security officers, they however abuse their positions by trying to intimidate the weak and vunerable (usually the most cooperative people) at 6ft 1 23 stone and shoulders any world class rugby player would kill for, I find these same security officers have become very polite and behave them selves when talking to me. Little men in little jobs abusing the little power they have.

 

My brother in-law and his wife both work in retail security and don’t abuse the system, they think all thoughs who do, give them a bad name and make their job that much harder. They have both been assaulted at work but don’t see this as an excuse to abuse others. This to me is the difference between professionals who take their jobs seriously, and amateurs who are there for a wage.

Edited July 2, 2010 by bigsteve0000
sp

[JonCris]

bigsteve Quite:mad: AND no I don't have a problem with the security industry as a whole I do have a problem with those within the security industry who think their job gives them the right to break the law & who mislead the unsophisticated ordinary citizen (usually women & children) into thinking they have greater powers than they do

Edited July 4, 2010 by JonCris

[MARTIN3030]

Yes Done.

[totallyinnocent]

Some questions.

1. What is the case law to consider exiting the shop if the shop is rented space within a totally enclosed mall complex? That is, do you have to have left the mall to have completed a shoplifting offence?

2. My understanding is that the law of tort can only be used to recover damages for actual loss, and that the party bringing the claim must have mitigated their loss. How can the party have shown that they did mitigate their loss if they allowed someone to walk just outside of their store front with goods before saying anything? They could easily have talked to the "customer" and advised them appropriately before they left the store? Any case law?

3. Several years ago I had someone go into my car and was awarded damages. I was not given money for my time to turn up to court as I had booked it as a holiday and so was therefore "going to be paid anyway". If that principle were correct, how can the cost of the security guards time be a loss if they were not being paid additional money, e.g. overtime?

4. Is there any entitlement to find out if security guards have bonus schemes that make them take actions that would increase profits to RLP rather than mitigate loss? I'm aware that the security guards prefer not to accept payment for an item as this would kill off their RLP bonus.

5. What can be done if shop&mall security have taken your photo without consent?

6. Why, if a citizen believes an offence has taken place, are they not required to call the police without delay?

7. Should you write to the store before you receive anything from RLP, even to complain?

8. Has any case law been developed about the claims for video equipment etc. that has already been purchased and would be operating whether a tort had occurred or not?

9. If you are interviewed by security staff at the back of the store, are they obliged by PACE or other to keep adequate records of the conversation?

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[totallyinnocent]

I think the "if they knew I was doing it,why didn't they stop me," argument would be laughed out of court in most cases. Its been said many,many times before.

The shop presumably has a till clearly displayed for the customer to pay? The shop most likely has shopping baskets for the customer to place goods in.

 

If we are talking about cases of people accidentally walking out with goods,not deliberately concealed,that is a different sitauation,although the intent has to be proved.

 

I'm talking about the use of tort law, I'm not taking about any criminal aspect. The damages must be mitigated. While laughter does happen in court they are usually quite somber places. Such legal argument would be presented and a robust counterargument would be needed. I don't think the judge would think much of the RLP lawyers if they just sat back and their only response was laughter. It is a long established principle (I'm trying to grab all the case law on this) that you must mitigate your loss, especially foreseeable loss.

 

It would be interesting to know what case law there may be about items in shopping baskets and what happens if someone walks out with goods in a basket for example "to look at offers on display in the shop window". Are customers obliged to use a basket? I did actually go into one shop where the security man handed out baskets to people he saw carrying items. Seemed a deliberate ploy to ensure nothing got accidentally put into a pocket or dropped on the floor. I think a precedent may have been set somewhere on a shoplifting case.

 

Consider for example you see your neighbour about to take a chainsaw to a tree that may land on your house. You do nothing to shout out or stop his action because you believe you would be in a better position to sue for your neighbour for damages (usually this being you claiming on your house insurance then the insurer chasing your neighbour's insurance company or the neighbour themselves). Maybe the tired old roof tiles you had needed replacing, and the bedroom needed redecorating, and your old computer was in there etc.

 

Change this scenario to, a customer ambling slowly out of a shop threshold into a main mall section holding goods in plain sight, that they have walked around the shop with and forgotten about, on clear display as a security guard right behind them watches waiting for the magic point to accost her. It is then made worse as the security staff refuse to let her pay for the item (which she would have done as soon as she stopped daydreaming), compounding the shops loss, then proceed to bring as many staff they can into the same back room so they can all claim to be involved in the case, so inflating any loss (if any were there in the first place).

 

I think there must be case law from other torts. I've often heard people who couldn't sell their car talk about setting it on fire and trying to claim the insurance but just taking the cash. May be something similar where someone leaves "valuables" they can't liquidate into cash somewhere deliberately to enable them to make a claim on insurance.

 

The more I get into this the more I see new ways to try to screw the other sides legal arguments.

[Zamzara]

@totallyinnocent

1. For a theft to occur it is not necessary for the thief to leave the store. Theft occurs as soon as the thief touches the property, if he acts dishonestly and with intent to deprive. But in practice it is a question of proof, as obviously most people will be intending to pay for the item and therefore not acting dishonestly.

2.I think the real problem with their claim is one of causation. There is insufficient causation between an individual who steals an the costs of the entire security arrangement demanded. Mitigation would not really affect the security costs claimed for.

 

3. Their argument is that if there were no risk of theft, they would not have to spend the money. But as above, I think there is insufficient causation by the individual towards the total costs.

 

4. It might be discolable if it went to court, but otherwise probably not.

 

5.It is legal to take someone's photo in a public place without their permission. How that photo is used may have data protection implications, but I'm not very knowledgable on that area.

 

6. There is no requirement to do so.

 

7. Maybe to complain about any wrongdoing by the store, but if it's just concerning RLP, it's probably pointless and maybe harmful.

 

8. Same advice as 2 and 3.

 

9. If you are not cautioned by the police anything you say will not be admissable, I'm not sure if this extends to confessions made to private citizens though.

[totallyinnocent]

Thanks for your response Zamzara. I'm just getting into this.

I now realise that one shouldn't worry about any criminal definitions as that is irrelevant unless you are dealing with the Police or similar. As we are talking about RLP then only civil definitions are necessary. Except that the CR action will be much easier if a conviction (not FPN) is given.

 

For the civil part

 

The staff get paid whether a theft occurs or otherwise, the same goes for the CCTV equipment and operating time. They are speculating as to their own protection needs. They have spent the money already. An individuals actions of shoplifting will not cause the main stores to add more CCTV or security unless they do something novel for the foreseeable future unless societal changes occur. I believe this then becomes an issue of remoteness.

 

They may have legitimate damages where goods recovered are not fit for resale (if you offer to pay asking price then that shouldn't be an issue), the member of security was due to finish a shift and then paid overtime, costs for heat & light should not be required as they can conduct their affairs in the main store, unless you were the last person in the shop at closing time and they turned off the lights when closed etc. However, if we are not talking criminal activity then it would be reasonable for you to return at another time more convenient to progress the matter.

 

If none of the above apply then no civil damage occurred. If damage is a legitimate issue it should not cause much further effort for the initial demand. The initial demand should be easily calculated based on the circumstances and the letter should not take little time to process.

 

The main stores should now have a simple set of calculations to develop an initial demand. The initial demand dose not need to have high levels of accuracy. Any dispute of figures would then cause further legitimate claims for effort (provided the original claim was valid and reasonable steps to resolve had failed).

 

If we were talking about a small store who had not thought through the calculation before that would be different. however, its still only a quick calculation not requiring a very expensive individual. You cannot charge time to develop a calculation model again and again. You can only charge to complete the inputs.

 

Even then I don't believe they can charge for the most expense lawyers they can find who happen to be the least productive.

 

Of course, none of this applies if they don't take you to court does it. 8-)

[totallyinnocent]

This case seems particularly relevant Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961).

 

Based on this I withdraw even the thought that their claim to overtime and stationary may be considered.

 

This leaves only damage or non recovery of goods to be considered. Where full recovery without damage has occurred immediately (i.e. you gave the items back) there can be no claim for damages.

 

If anything one should consider suing the company for false arrest and detention.

[totallyinnocent]

I'd also say that this case backs up the position that their actions to hold you and spend their time increasing their damages are not valid, i.e. they should minimise their loss.

 

HumberOil Terminal Trustee Ltd v Sivand, Owners Of Ship [1998] EWCA Civ 100 (29 January 1998)

Edited September 10, 2010 by totallyinnocent
1998) caused a smiley

[JonCris]

Please think in terms of 'contingency' Are CR firms paid a one off weekly, monthly or yearly fee OR do they share the recovered moneys WHEN recovered, do they deduct their cut before paying the balance to their client OR do they keep the whole sum to cover THEIR fees?

[totallyinnocent]

Are you suggesting that the CR firms provide security services to stores FOC on the basis that if they find a situation they believe is worth pursuing they then put the taxi meter on and start booking to the account? If this were true then they can't count the cost of the detection as damage.

 

Complilation of the legal case involves compiling evidence after the event, e.g. going through CCTV etc.

 

BTW: I note that the Information Commissioners Office has issued a Code of Practice that sets a maximum fee to be charged to an individual to obtain a copy of CCTV footage as being £10.

 

Most sensible shops ask you straight away for a reasonable claim for any damage you have caused. E.g. if you drop a plate in an antiques shop, you then buy it. If you don't then they have to sue you. These big chain shops don't seem to want a simple solution to any small act. It is unreasonable behaviour on their part to go through a tortuous path to inflate their costs when a simpler remedy was available. If you pick something up that you intended to buy but forgot you had it, had paid for other goods, and then were stopped leaving the store, the simple remedy for the shop is to ask that you pay for the other item. If you refuse then that is something else to consider.

 

Also any act of their staff which would be deemed illegal, e.g. impersonation of an officer of the law, or false imprisonment, would lead to the use of "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio" to dismiss their claim.

[JonCris]

Are you suggesting that the CR firms provide security services to stores FOC on the basis that if they find a situation they believe is worth pursuing they then put the taxi meter on and start booking to the account? If this were true then they can't count the cost of the detection as damage.

 

Complilation of the legal case involves compiling evidence after the event, e.g. going through CCTV etc.

 

BTW: I note that the Information Commissioners Office has issued a Code of Practice that sets a maximum fee to be charged to an individual to obtain a copy of CCTV footage as being £10.

 

Most sensible shops ask you straight away for a reasonable claim for any damage you have caused. E.g. if you drop a plate in an antiques shop, you then buy it. If you don't then they have to sue you. These big chain shops don't seem to want a simple solution to any small act. It is unreasonable behaviour on their part to go through a tortuous path to inflate their costs when a simpler remedy was available. If you pick something up that you intended to buy but forgot you had it, had paid for other goods, and then were stopped leaving the store, the simple remedy for the shop is to ask that you pay for the other item. If you refuse then that is something else to consider.

 

Also any act of their staff which would be deemed illegal, e.g. impersonation of an officer of the law, or false imprisonment, would lead to the use of "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio" to dismiss their claim.

 

 

I'm simply stating that victims might like to consider the possibility (even if they think it remote) whether or not the CR firm 'shares' the 'recovery' on a percentage basis 50/50% or 25/75% or whatever AND if so would that not create an incentive to 'create' a theft or simply jump to conclusions

[totallyinnocent]

I'm simply stating that victims might like to consider the possibility (even if they think it remote) whether or not the CR firm 'shares' the 'recovery' on a percentage basis 50/50% or 25/75% or whatever AND if so would that not create an incentive to 'create' a theft or simply jump to conclusions

 

Unless we've been stuffed again by our politicians, they can't "create" a theft. It was either theft, or it wasn't. It certainly wouldn't feature in dealings with the CR firm to discuss tests of criminality. That is for the criminal courts.

 

However, I like your thinking. I would have thought that if brought to civil court, the contractual arrangements between the store and the CR would be relevant. Especially if the CR firm employed or assisted the security team and provided "training materials".

 

Would the CR firm be so stupid as to distribute such training material?

[JonCris]

If the security guards says it theft its theft init! If it's not (as it often isn't) they WILL still claim its theft .............. AND that's how its created

[totallyinnocent]

No it isn't theft. The security guard can suspect you of committing a theft and then arrest you. However, as far as the law is concerned you are innocent until proven guilty.

 

Unless you are convicted of theft then they can't pursue their claims for CR as no offence was committed.

[JonCris]

No it isn't theft. The security guard can suspect you of committing a theft and then arrest you. However, as far as the law is concerned you are innocent until proven guilty.

 

Unless you are convicted of theft then they can't pursue their claims for CR as no offence was committed.

 

 

Only a police officer can't act upon a suspicion, a civilian security guard MUST KNOW you have committed an offence To do otherwise risks being accused of false arrest, kidnap etc etc

 

If a security guard admits not knowing until AFTER the said arrest they still commit an offence although if its true their offence would probably be mitigated

[totallyinnocent]

Only a police officer can't act upon a suspicion

 

Not quite true, its worse than this, here is the text from PACE clause 24A.

 

"...

24A Arrest without warrant: other persons

 

(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;

(b) anyone whom he has

reasonable grounds for suspecting

to be

committing

an indictable offence.

(2) Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;

(b) anyone whom he has

reasonable grounds for suspecting

to be

guilty

of it.

(3) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—

(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and

(b) it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

(4) The reasons are to prevent the person in question—

(a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(b) suffering physical injury;

© causing loss of or damage to property; or

(d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

(5) This section does not apply in relation to an offence under Part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.

..."

 

the security staff only have to suspect you are committing, or guilty! Can't believe that (2)(b) is right somehow but there you go.

 

Dosen't stop them applying the rest of PACE though if they take the first step down its path.

Edited September 10, 2010 by totallyinnocent
it gets worse

[JonCris]

Sorry but you wrong but as CR firms regularly read this forum I cannot say why yet

[ArtisanUK]

No it isn't theft. The security guard can suspect you of committing a theft and then arrest you. However, as far as the law is concerned you are innocent until proven guilty.

 

Unless you are convicted of theft then they can't pursue their claims for CR as no offence was committed.

 

I am not so sure about that, as they could certainly start a claim with little or no evidence to support it.

 

Conversely, that they do not appear to have succeeded with any claim for damages may say much about the validity of their claims for the alleged costs of the surveillance operation which, as others have pointed out, cannot be directly attributed to the alleged theft.

[diddydicky]

@totallyinnocent

1. For a theft to occur it is not necessary for the thief to leave the store. Theft occurs as soon as the thief touches the property, if he acts dishonestly and with intent to deprive. But in practice it is a question of proof, as obviously most people will be intending to pay for the item and therefore not acting dishonestly.

 

 

#

# i would take issue with the argument that the theft occurs the moment that the property is touched

 

there is an implied consent in most stores for the public to touch feel and remove goods from the shelves, a person placing goods in a trolley , basket or (as is now the case with recycling) their own bag- is not necessarily acting dishonestly

 

moreover if a person decided that he wanted to take the stores property for himself- and removed it from the shelf with that intent- perhaps pick up a game and play with it whilst he toured the store..and then dump it somewhere before he left the store - then as his intent was not to PERMANENTLY deprive the store of that property- the offence of theft is not completed

 

many shoppers pick up items rather than double their steps around a large store- and then- if they see something better- then "dump" the original item somewhere else prior to the checkout,

 

whilst i accept that deliberate concealment may be INDICATIVE of an intent to comit theft- what of a man who is shopping in Tesco with his wife and kids and see s something that might be a good birthday or chirstmas present? he may well "conceal it" (from its intended recipient) and at some stage make his own way to the tills to pay for it

 

his intention, in concealing the goods is not to permanently deprive the owner of them- but simply to conceal evidence of the present he is about to buy from the person it is intended for

 

what i am getting at is that the INTENT is almolst impossible to prove prior to the checkouts, whereas once the offender has proceeded through the checkout and is leaving the store- it would be a lot easier to prove intent- especially if the goods are concealed about the person

 

but there are STILL many ways in which a shopper can innocently get through the tills with unpaid items in their bags- for instance if the shopper had with them an 10 year old who pocketed something in the store and then put it in mums bags after the checkout unknown to the mother- then not only is the mother not guilty of theft- but the child is under the age of criminal responsibility

 

there is a minefield there- which is why without a conviction, thank god- a person in this country is innocent!

 

the definition of theft is

 

"The dishonest appropriation of property, belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

 

There are FIVE points to prove in that definition

 

 

incidentally (off subject a tad)

 

if a person in a store goes into an area that is not open to the public and steals- then the offence would be burglary and not theft.

Edited January 9, 2011 by diddydicky

[diddydicky]

Not quite true, its worse than this, here is the text from PACE clause 24A.

 

"...

24A Arrest without warrant: other persons

 

(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;

(b) anyone whom he has

reasonable grounds for suspecting

to be

committing

an indictable offence.

(2) Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;

(b) anyone whom he has

reasonable grounds for suspecting

to be

guilty

of it.

(3) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—

(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and

(b) it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

(4) The reasons are to prevent the person in question—

(a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(b) suffering physical injury;

© causing loss of or damage to property; or

(d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

(5) This section does not apply in relation to an offence under Part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.

..."

 

the security staff only have to suspect you are committing, or guilty! Can't believe that (2)(b) is right somehow but there you go.

 

Dosen't stop them applying the rest of PACE though if they take the first step down its path.

 

if we are going to cite what a citizen can and cannot do (which includes a security guard) lets get ALL the facts

 

 

 

 

 

as in the next post

[diddydicky]

Under the law of England and Wales, members of the public are allowed to use reasonable force to make a lawful arrest. The situations in which a citizen can lawfully make an arrest are, in fact, identical to those in which a police officer can make an arrest. A citizen can lawfully arrest a person:

 

Who is committing an arrestable offence or if the citizen has reasonable grounds to suspect that they are committing an arrestable offence. – Arrestable offences are ones which, in law, carry a power of arrest. These include theft and most types of assault;

 

Who has committed an arrestable offence or who the citizen reasonably suspects to have committed an arrestable offence;

 

Who is causing a breach of the peace. (NOTE - who IS CAUSING - not who is ABOUT TO)

 

Under recent legislation there may also be the additional requirements that:

The citizen could not reasonably have called on a police officer to carry out the arrest; and,

 

The arrest was necessary to prevent injury, loss or damage of property, or to prevent someone avoiding arrest by a police officer.

 

In practical terms it is likely that most ordinary citizens would not contemplate trying to arrest someone unless the above two situations applied.

 

Since putting someone under arrest almost certainly includes an element of force there may be little distinction between:

 

A citizen’s right to use force to carry out a lawful arrest; and

A citizen’s right to use force in self-defence, in defence of someone else, to protect property or to prevent a crime being committed.

 

What is a Lawful Arrest?

 

An arrest, generally, involves physically preventing an individual from moving freely. As a matter of law restricting another person’s movement in this way usually constitutes an offence – such as kidnapping. However, if an individual arrests another person in one of the situations described above the arrest becomes lawful. If none of the situations apply the arrest will be unlawful and the individual being arrested will be entitled to use reasonable force to resist it.

 

Technically for an arrest to be lawful, the individual arrested should also be informed that they are being arrested, and why, as soon as this can practically be done.

 

Reasonable Force

 

The amount of force that is reasonable to carry out a lawful arrest will depend on the circumstances of each case. The question will be:

 

Was it reasonable to use any force in the circumstances as the individual who used the force believed them to be?; and

Was the amount of force used reasonable?

 

An individual acting on the spur of the moment to make an arrest is not expected to weigh up all the factors and make a calculated decision about how much, if any, force is justified. However, whether the use of force was reasonable will depend on various issues including the seriousness of the crime being committed or prevented and the severity of injuries suffered by either party.

 

Now What?

 

Once a citizen has placed someone under arrest they will then have to decide what to do with them next. For the arrest to remain lawful, the citizen will have to take the individual to the police or a Magistrates’ Court within a “reasonable time”. Once again, what is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case.

 

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Approach to Civilian Arrests

 

Citizens are to be encouraged to act responsibly and in a public-spirited way. However, they cannot be allowed to take the law into their own hands. If the CPS has to decide whether to bring a prosecution against an individual, who was carrying out a citizen’s arrest, they will try to strike a balance between these two objectives. Even where there is a suggestion that the amount of force used was excessive the CPS will still think very carefully before bringing a prosecution against an individual. The CPS is reluctant to prosecute such cases because of the public benefit provided by those who are prepared to get involved when a crime is being committed.

 

i hope that clears that one up

[Zamzara]

there is an implied consent in most stores for the public to touch feel and remove goods from the shelves, a person placing goods in a trolley , basket or (as is now the case with recycling) their own bag- is not necessarily acting dishonestly

.

 

I believe this is pretty much what I said. Obviously someone who touches an item without any dishomesty, or intention to permenantly deprive is not guilty of anyting.

 

If someone does touch an item with those intentions, then they are guilty of theft immediately. The problem is purely a question of proof, as (unless theychoose to confess) they could claim they were intending to pay.

[nelli]

sent Rlp a letter explaining the situation and got a reply today saying their dropping the whole thing.

 

relieved dosnt cover it.

 

bigsteve - do you mean that they completely dropped the charges, including the fixed penalty of £80 ?

[nelli]

bigsteve - do you mean that they completely dropped the charges, including the fixed penalty of £80 ?