[fasttalkerchat]

Originally Posted by Melendez

I am referring to your point above, which you now seemed to have changed direction on. Of course staff can detain people who they have caught shoplifting. Sure the staff need to be very careful making accusations until they have left the store, but your arguement was that you couldn't detain them at all whether they left or not, which is nonsense.

I said that it was a grey area legally. There is no law which says that a suspected shoplifter can be detained by a retailer. In the past the cops turned a blind eye but now there have been court cases for things like defamation of character etc.

[PMan]

Originally Posted by ASOT

And you cant get caught shoplifting until you leave the store.

Is this opinion based on your legal expertise?

I ask because a lot of countries define shoplifting differently. I've always wondered what the actual law was in Ireland (as opposed to what people think the law should be).

Although the crime of shoplifting may be prosecuted under general Larceny statutes, most jurisdictions have established a specific category for shoplifting. Statutes vary widely, but generally the elements of shoplifting are (1) willfully taking possession of or concealing unpurchased goods that are offered for sale (2) with the intention of converting the merchandise to the taker's personal use without paying the purchase price. Possession or concealment of goods typically encompasses actions both on and outside the premises.

[CoachTO]

Originally Posted by PMan

Is this opinion based on your legal expertise?

No idea if its law but when I worked in security we were told do not grab the shoplifter until he/she leaves because if you pull them in the store they could easily use the defense that they intended to pay for the item regardless of where they put the item.

[Pretty Polly]

Any update OP?

[Pageant Messiah]

Intersesting debate about the legality of detaining someone.

I'm not a lawyer and have no formal legal training but a company I worked for as a retail manager ended up settling out of court with a thief who had shop lifted and was then restrained by store security after refusing to come back in etc.

Here's where the grey area comes in which we were informed meant we couldn't make a citizens arrest without having it blow up in our faces.

Section 4 of the Criminal Justic Act which everyone normally refers to as giving the right to detain a shoplifter actually only gives the right where the person in question has or is suspected of committing an offence punishable by 5 years in jail.

And that's the issue - 5 years in jail because the maximum penalty for shop lifiting is actually 2 years. Straightforward theft / robbery as in a burglary or car theft etc is punishable up to 10 years in jail and you're absolutley entitled to detain someone in that case. However shoplifitng or failing to pay at a restaurant as is this case is dealt with as a seperate crime punishable by up to 2 years in prison.

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot is guilty of an offence.


(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.

So in the incident I am talking about a male left the store without paying, was asked to come back in by security and refused to do so. Security then detained him - called the Gardai who arrested him for the theft. However this guys lawyer basically came after our company and the security company contracted by us for false imprisonment and the legal advice given was the company had indeed committed an offence so they settled out of court for what I believe was €7,000 to a thieving scumbag - nevermind an innocent person being mistakenly accused of it. Company policy thereafter was to request the thief to come back in but if they refused to get details like car reg etc and hand them over to the Gardai.

Unless this has been updated (and it may well have to be fair as the original legislation referred to £ fines etc) the restaurant in question has made a very serious error.

[cursai]

Oh I give up. Gave it a shot. I know I'll be thanking the security guard next time he holds john Joe in the security office. I certainly won't be spouting any theoretical legal ramifications to him. And I won't be expecting him to grab the car reg off johnnys arse or expect a guard to trawl through CCTV footage daily for numerous different thefts cause Johnny stole a DVD. But then again real world practical use of the law is different to internet use of the law. Have NEVER seen a solicitor use this defence in court either. Not saying it didn't happen but the circumstances are never how the newspapers report them.

[Del2005]

Originally Posted by cursai

Have NEVER seen a solicitor use this defence in court either. Not saying it didn't happen but the circumstances are never how the newspapers report them.

Perhaps the reason that you've never seen it used in court is below

Originally Posted by Pageant Messiah

So in the incident I am talking about a male left the store without paying, was asked to come back in by security and refused to do so. Security then detained him - called the Gardai who arrested him for the theft. However this guys lawyer basically came after our company and the security company contracted by us for false imprisonment and the legal advice given was the company had indeed committed an offence so they settled out of court for what I believe was €7,000 to a thieving scumbag - nevermind an innocent person being mistakenly accused of it. Company policy thereafter was to request the thief to come back in but if they refused to get details like car reg etc and hand them over to the Gardai.

Unless this has been updated (and it may well have to be fair as the original legislation referred to £ fines etc) the restaurant in question has made a very serious error.

Most companies take the least painful/cheapest way out. If they go to court then it'll cost more than paying off the "thief" even if they are guilty.

[Pageant Messiah]

Originally Posted by cursai

Oh I give up. Gave it a shot. I know I'll be thanking the security guard next time he holds john Joe in the security office. I certainly won't be spouting any theoretical legal ramifications to him. And I won't be expecting him to grab the car reg off johnnys arse or expect a guard to trawl through CCTV footage daily for numerous different thefts cause Johnny stole a DVD. But then again real world practical use of the law is different to internet use of the law. Have NEVER seen a solicitor use this defence in court either. Not saying it didn't happen but the circumstances are never how the newspapers report them.

The thief (to hell with the alledged part - I saw the video myself of him stuffing his pants with the items in question) took the approach solely on the fact that he had been unlawfully detained. At the time it blew up it was a seperate case to the actual theft. Perhaps though it was a defence strategy as I believe the prosecution for theft never proceeded.

Up until that time I had been 10 years in retail management and had been involved in a lot of detentions of shop lifters (99% of them voluntary I must add !) but I never for a million years considered it was an unlawful detention. Have moved on from that company since but to this day I would not force a suspect back into the store if they refused to come back in and discuss why they left without paying.

[cursai]

Originally Posted by Pageant Messiah

The thief (to hell with the alledged part - I saw the video myself of him stuffing his pants with the items in question) took the approach solely on the fact that he had been unlawfully detained. At the time it blew up it was a seperate case to the actual theft. Perhaps though it was a defence strategy as I believe the prosecution for theft never proceeded.

Up until that time I had been 10 years in retail management and had been involved in a lot of detentions of shop lifters (99% of them voluntary I must add !) but I never for a million years considered it was an unlawful detention. Have moved on from that company since but to this day I would not force a suspect back into the store if they refused to come back in and discuss why they left without paying.

I
I get your point. But in court it is taken as proof of intent that if a person stuffs something into their shirt or passes the cashier and heads toward the door our exit. The theft is there. There is a grey area here. But there its in all law and it boils down to the circumstances. I can't believe that case you cited. Not your part of it buy the outcome. the store must have a very bad legal department or there were other elements to it.
Anyway the practice of detaining someone will continue as its the only sensible thing for store security to do. Police cannot spends resources looking for people who stole a DVD. A judge knows this and as I said before the proof for the offence is in the attempt to leave the store or the concealment of the good s. Common sense must prevail and thankfully it does.

[Discodog]

In all cases there has to be an element of intended theft, which means seeking to permanently deprive someone of their property. Some friends & I once had a meal in an Indian restaurant & the food was dreadful. We ate a starter but several of the main courses were severely & dangerously undercooked.

We refused the food & offered to pay for what we had eaten. The manager went ballistic & ordered all the staff to block the door. Two other tables also started complaining about their food. We called the Guards & made it clear to them that we were prepared to pay for what we had eaten & we gave proof of identity.

The Guards were happy for us to leave & informed the manager that it was a totally civil matter - it was up to him to sue us for non payment. Under advice we didn't pay for our starters & drinks & we never heard from the restaurant.

[Sully]

Interesting debate, hope the OP takes it further tbh. I remember getting food in a restaurant before and their machines were out of order. I offered to go down to an ATM and they said I could pay it the next time I was in, which I did. Could be because they recognised me as I go in most weekends, but either way, thought it was decent of them