Shopper loses slander claim against Penneys

Victor

I'm surprised this made it to court. There have beena couple of similar cases over the last 5 years and all have failed to my knowledge. The trick is for the shop owner to keep calm and make a quiet enquiry as to whether goods have been paid for and not to make an outright accusation.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0116/1232059653331.html

Shopper loses slander claim against Penneys
RAY MANAGH

A WOMAN who claimed she had been wrongly accused of taking a set of false nails from a Dublin department store has lost her €38,000 damages claim in which she alleged she had been slandered and falsely imprisoned.

Judge Jacqueline Linnane heard evidence in the Circuit Civil Court that 90 per cent of theft from Penneys Store in Mary Street, Dublin, was from the cosmetics department because items were easily concealed.

Paul O’Neill, counsel for Penneys, told the court that a 15-minute video of Christine Doyle’s movements through the store during Christmas rush shopping in December 2004 showed her picking up a set of false nails, placing them on the hood of her child’s buggy and covering them with a jacket she had brought back to the store to exchange. Ms Doyle, of Kerlouge Road, Ringsend, Dublin, said when she placed the nails on the buggy she intended buying them, but later changed her mind while browsing in the store and had placed the nails on a Christmas decoration close to an escalator in Penneys.

She told Mr O’Neill she had overlooked paying for them when she had exchanged the jacket for towels, despite having to hand over a cash difference in the swap deal. She said she often placed intended purchases on top of her child’s buggy while shopping. The nails had been covered by the jacket and the towels she had picked up to exchange.

Security supervisor Mark Cassin said he had been monitoring security cameras in the control room and had seen Ms Doyle place the nails on the buggy and cover them. From that time onwards, he followed her movements on CCTV while directing store detective Danielle Graham to shadow her. He said when a buggy hood was partly folded it created a crease in which items could be hidden.

Ms Graham said she followed Ms Doyle to the customer service counter, where she saw the nails on the buggy hood as she exchanged the jacket for towels. She did not pay for them and at no time did she see her place them on a Christmas decoration or a shelf. She had followed her outside, where a member of the security staff had asked her to come back into the shop.

Dismissing Ms Doyle’s claim and awarding costs against her, Judge Linnane said she had refused to return to the shop until a garda was present.

Garda Kenneth Butler, who had been in the shop on another matter, had spoken to her and had inspected the buggy hood but had not found any nails. He had told Ms Doyle she was free to go.

Judge Linnane told Mr O’Neill she was satisfied Penneys security staff had behaved in a reasonable, professional and courteous manner at all times and were entitled under the law of qualified privilege to make relevant inquiries about an item they felt had not been paid for.

Our man in Havana

I hope that they got their costs from their accuser.

cotwold

Hold on, if she hadn't stolen anything surely they'd no basis on which to hold her.

seamus

cotwold wrote: »

Hold on, if she hadn't stolen anything surely they'd no basis on which to hold her.

There wasn't. But the shop had reasonable grounds on which to act and their actions were "reasonable, professional and courteous". Just because she didn't do anything wrong, doesn't mean she's automatically entitled to compensation.

cotwold

seamus wrote: »

There wasn't. But the shop had reasonable grounds on which to act and their actions were "reasonable, professional and courteous". Just because she didn't do anything wrong, doesn't mean she's automatically entitled to compensation.

No but they did falsely imprisoner her.

Our man in Havana

No, she would have been free to leave at any time.

cotwold

Why didn't she then?

This is the problem newspaper reports of cases, they dont describe enough the circumstances.

Lawstud

See John McCormack v Adrian Olsthoom (HC 21st Dec 2004)

jhegarty

Would she have had a case if she tried to go , and they physically stopped her ?

Tom Young

Yes, per OPs McCormack v Adrian Olsthoom (HC 21st Dec 2004) citation in which Hardiman J (in the High Court off the Supreme Court bench) gave his reasons which included false imprisonment and trespass to the person.

cotwold

Ok, so am i to understand she didn't try to leave.

If she hadn't tried to leave what was she basing her case on?

Tom Young

I don't think it's reported properly in the above press clip. The journo should have asked counsel for the alleged words.

In a slander action, the Plaintiff (that is the person bringing the action) has to prove that the words caused him actual damage, financial or otherwise.

Exceptions to this rule. If a spoken statement suggests that a woman has been naughty, or slanders a person in his profession or calling, or suggests that a person has a criminal record or contagious disease, no proof of actual damage is necessary.

Tom

Kimbot

cotwold wrote: »

No but they did falsely imprisoner her.

No, she said she wouldn't return to the store without a Garda there so she wasn't held anywhere against her will from what I can see.

cotwold

Tom Young wrote: »

I don't think it's reported properly in the above press clip.

Ditto, i'm more interested in the circumstances of them holding her though.

jonny24ie wrote: »

No, she said she wouldn't return to the store without a Garda there so she wasn't held anywhere against her will from what I can see.

Ah, i see. Well in that case she didn't have a foot to stand on, silly woman should've walked away.

Johnny Utah

From the facts presented, I think that the security staff were unprofessional and unreasonable in their actions. I would have allowed the claim.

1. The plaintiff claimed that she left the false nails in the shop on a Christmas decoration. If the store detective had been observing the plaintiff closely, she would have seen this action and therefore would have no reasonable grounds to follow the plaintiff out of the shop.

2. It appears that the plaintiff was detained outside the shop until the Garda arrived. If there were no reasonable grounds for detaining the plaintiff, then this amounts to a false imprisonment.

3. When the Garda searched the buggy, the false nails were not found. This corroborates the plaintiff’s version of events- ie. that she left the item in the shop. If the person operating the security camera was able to see the plaintiff hide the nails on top of the buggy, then surely he was able to see the plaintiff leave the same item on a Christmas decoration. Bear in mind that the plaintiff was being followed constantly by cameras and had a store detective observing her.



Imo, a lot of retail security staff and store detectives are on a power trip and have little in the way of professionalism or courtesy. I’ve been followed around before, and it made me very uncomfortable. It reminds of that ad on TV, where the young fella walks into a newsagent and the person behind the counter is watching him like a hawk, while the old granny reaches into the till to help herself!

Our man in Havana

She might yet appeal to the Supreme Court.

McCrack

Johnny Utah wrote: »

From the facts presented, I think that the security staff were unprofessional and unreasonable in their actions. I would have allowed the claim.

1. The plaintiff claimed that she left the false nails in the shop on a Christmas decoration. If the store detective had been observing the plaintiff closely, she would have seen this action and therefore would have no reasonable grounds to follow the plaintiff out of the shop.

2. It appears that the plaintiff was detained outside the shop until the Garda arrived. If there were no reasonable grounds for detaining the plaintiff, then this amounts to a false imprisonment.

3. When the Garda searched the buggy, the false nails were not found. This corroborates the plaintiff’s version of events- ie. that she left the item in the shop. If the person operating the security camera was able to see the plaintiff hide the nails on top of the buggy, then surely he was able to see the plaintiff leave the same item on a Christmas decoration. Bear in mind that the plaintiff was being followed constantly by cameras and had a store detective observing her.



Imo, a lot of retail security staff and store detectives are on a power trip and have little in the way of professionalism or courtesy. I’ve been followed around before, and it made me very uncomfortable. It reminds of that ad on TV, where the young fella walks into a newsagent and the person behind the counter is watching him like a hawk, while the old granny reaches into the till to help herself!

My take on this is that the newspaper hasnt reported this correctly.
If on reading actually happened this woman clearly has an actionable case for F.I., defamation and possiby assault/battery if the security officer touch the woman in any way.

A defence of qualified privilage for this type of circumstance is new to me and I personally cant see how it could be stretched to cover this type of circumstance.

Johnny Utah I dont think it's fair to make an assumption that the security staff were "unprofessional and unreasonable". Ive an niggling feeling that this hasnt been reported correctly by the newspaper. I've on occassions been privy to instances reported by the media which always had some kind of factual inaccuracies so therefore I take what I read in the papers with a pinch of salt.

In relation to your point that the CCTV operator should have seen her place the nails back..often times there are 'blind-spots" in shops that the cameras cant see or simply the case that people were standing in the way.

In relation to Bond-007, there can be no appeal in this instance to the SC as it was started in the Circuit Court. There may be an appeal to the HC which will be final. (a point of law may be referred to the SC by the HC but no rehearing).

Stabshauptmann

In all fairness shop security are in an almost impossible position. there is no theft until the person has left the store, and once they have left the store you cant do anything to them.

cotwold

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

In all fairness shop security are in an almost impossible position. there is no theft until the person has left the store, and once they have left the store you cant do anything to them.

Well if they know someones robbed somwthing they can detain them and if they suspect it they can ask them in the store which im sure would rattle most people.

Johnny Utah

McCrack wrote: »

My take on this is that the newspaper hasnt reported this correctly.
If on reading actually happened this woman clearly has an actionable case for F.I., defamation and possiby assault/battery if the security officer touch the woman in any way.

A defence of qualified privilage for this type of circumstance is new to me and I personally cant see how it could be stretched to cover this type of circumstance.

Johnny Utah I dont think it's fair to make an assumption that the security staff were "unprofessional and unreasonable". Ive an niggling feeling that this hasnt been reported correctly by the newspaper. I've on occassions been privy to instances reported by the media which always had some kind of factual inaccuracies so therefore I take what I read in the papers with a pinch of salt.

In relation to your point that the CCTV operator should have seen her place the nails back..often times there are 'blind-spots" in shops that the cameras cant see or simply the case that people were standing in the way.

In relation to Bond-007, there can be no appeal in this instance to the SC as it was started in the Circuit Court. There may be an appeal to the HC which will be final. (a point of law may be referred to the SC by the HC but no rehearing).

I agree, the newspaper report is quite poor, and seems to have omitted certain facts. However, in relation to the CCTV aspect, I think it is quite unlikely that the shopper would have returned the false nails at a blind spot from the camera. There are cameras everywhere in department stores, and it was not mentioned in the newspaper report that the security camera had been hindered by a blind spot.

As well as that, there was a store detective following the shopper who should have seen her returning the false nails. Perhaps the security team suspected that the shopper had other items concealed in the buggy?

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

In all fairness shop security are in an almost impossible position. there is no theft until the person has left the store, and once they have left the store you cant do anything to them.

Not true. A shoplifter can be stopped as they are leaving the shop (provided there is a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed theft).

madmik

they must have detained the woman or she would have continued to the next shop
the fact that she wouldnt return to the store until a garda was present indicated that she had already left the shop
also as far as i know its illegal to stop a person with a concealed item until after they have left the store(to ensure they are actually going to leave without payinng)

its strangely not a crime to go into a shop and put an item in your bag or pocket UNTIL YOU ATTEMPT TO LEAVE THE STORE

having the nails concealed in the pram would have been ok had she not left the shop

Victor

madmik wrote: »

also as far as i know its illegal to stop a person with a concealed item until after they have left the store(to ensure they are actually going to leave without payinng)

A more accurate test is "have they passed the last cash point with the intention of leaving?"

JæKæ

I used to work under cover in Roches Stores. The only person I caught in my one year stint was a teenager who robbed lip gloss. We had to wait for her to leave the whole shopping centre before nabbin her, or she could say she was gonna pay for it.
We had a spy hole in the cosmetics dept, that's where the majority of the robbin goes on alright

pirelli

JæKæ wrote: »

I used to work under cover in Roches Stores. The only person I caught in my one year stint was a teenager who robbed lip gloss. We had to wait for her to leave the whole shopping centre before nabbin her, or she could say she was gonna pay for it.
We had a spy hole in the cosmetics dept, that's where the majority of the robbin goes on alright

LOL!

Dunnes stores everyday there is about ten shoplifters in each store, There is always cops running up and down the office. It's incredibly hard to believe that in one whole year you only saw a poor girl take a 20 cent a lip gloss.I would say you took your years frustration out on her, detained interrogated and handed over to the police to be arrested and prosecuted.

Like you had to make an example of her.

JæKæ

I had to justify my wage by bringin in someone.
THe gards searched her bag and found plenty of stuff from Dunnes too, no receipts. She was an angsty little bitch.
In fairness it's impossible to catch anyone without use of the cameras in the control room. Walkin around after them waitin for them to rob somethin, while remaining inconspicuous

pirelli

JæKæ wrote: »

I had to justify my wage by bringin in someone.
THe gards searched her bag and found plenty of stuff from Dunnes too, no receipts. She was an angsty little bitch.
In fairness it's impossible to catch anyone without use of the cameras in the control room. Walkin around after them waitin for them to rob somethin, while remaining inconspicuous

So you were there when she was searched, poor girl.I never keep receipts from Dunnes or tesco, i just use my clubcard, works the same.

seamus

pirelli wrote: »

So you were there when she was searched, poor girl.I never keep receipts from Dunnes or tesco, i just use my clubcard, works the same.

If you just bought something that second, you'll get a receipt, clubcard or no.

I imagine the girl's bag was full of stuff that you wouldn't happen to be just carrying around in a bag, otherwise he wouldn't have commented.

Trojan911

Johnny Utah wrote: »

From the facts presented, I think that the security staff were unprofessional and unreasonable in their actions. I would have allowed the claim.

I agree in that it is obvious the 100% continuity was lost at some point therefore breaking one of the first rules of the role of store detective. For the sake of the price of a set of nails she should have been let walk. Her cards were then marked for future observations. Or they could have followed her, alerting the Gardai, to perform a stop and search on the grounds of what they had witnessed.

On another note & unrelated to this incident, there are people who go out to do just this i.e. deliberately set out to get stopped by security staff having sucessfully dumped the merchandise so a claim can go in against the store.

IRISH RAIL

Trojan911 wrote: »

I agree in that it is obvious the 100% continuity was lost at some point therefore breaking one of the first rules of the role of store detective. For the sake of the price of a set of nails she should have been let walk. Her cards were then marked for future observations. Or they could have followed her, alerting the Gardai, to perform a stop and search on the grounds of what they had witnessed.

On another note & unrelated to this incident, there are people who go out to do just this i.e. deliberately set out to get stopped by security staff having sucessfully dumped the merchandise so a claim can go in against the store.

Thats weird I was just talking to someone about that today how all you have to do is "look" suspicious and a power tripping gaurd will be over like lightning then run out of the shop and see what happens.

Victor

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

Thats weird I was just talking to someone about that today how all you have to do is "look" suspicious and a power tripping gaurd will be over like lightning then run out of the shop and see what happens.

I take it that such behavious is less common in your neck of the woods.

Trojan911

Victor wrote: »

I take it that such behavious is less common in your neck of the woods.

Chop, chop, springs to mind

Victor

Trojan911 wrote: »

Chop, chop, springs to mind

Well, tap-tap.

turly

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

In all fairness shop security are in an almost impossible position. there is no theft until the person has left the store, and once they have left the store you cant do anything to them.

Really? I saw a guy walk out of Brown Thomas in Cork with a bottle of perfume or something, the security guard followed him outside onto Patrick St. and dragged him back inside. The guy didn't put up much resistance, but clearly didn't want to go back. The guard didn't say anything, just caught him by the arm and dragged him the 10 yards or so back into BT. The guy (an eastern European) had very poor English, all he said was "Sorry".

I remember thinking that the guard's actions looked a bit dodgy from a legal point of view. This was two or three years ago now.

Trojan911

turly wrote: »

I remember thinking that the guard's actions looked a bit dodgy from a legal point of view. This was two or three years ago now.

Since then a licensing procedure has come in for all walks of security work, 73sectors of it, I believe. It is a good move in the sense that it will clean up the industry and weed out the ones with criminal convictions etc. The industry does attract some right moody & strange characters.

The down side of it is those who are licensed have to renew their licenses every two years at a cost, which to me is a form of stealth tax.

pirelli

seamus wrote: »

If you just bought something that second, you'll get a receipt, clubcard or no.

I imagine the girl's bag was full of stuff that you wouldn't happen to be just carrying around in a bag, otherwise he wouldn't have commented.

It was Roches stores and not Dunnes stores and so the time line between purchasing the goods in Dunnes stores and entering Roches stores has not been established and is conjecture on your part. Also the security guard has also stated that this was his very first encounter and therefore he was not using experience or trial and error to make that observation.It could be just a guess.


Most people who use the automated cash system do not keep receipts.There is no purpose in keeping lots of these receipts, they get binned at the door. I advise you check and observe the bin located at each exit of Tesco and Dunnes stores and take careful note of the hundreds of thrown away receipts.

As the security guard has stated "he had to justify his wage" and it had been a year and he had never experienced any action. It might have been a misunderstanding, and she might have been the much needed gazelle to feed the pride. The contents of her stomach are no different than the average shoppers.

rick flair

Hi All

There is one point you have missed which is the pivot this case revolves around and that is their defence was one of qualified priviledge. However (and a BIG however) in order to rely on this defence you need to believe that the person has stolen goods. This defence fails so many times when the defendants cannot prove that they actually believed that the person had stolen items and thats where Malice steps in for the Plaintiff.

But in this case they could prove that they had a reasonable belief that she had stolen items thus QP got them home. But that is all i would take away from this case but i would doubt if they will appeal as the matter was handled well , just as if she had stolen items on her person when she was stopped.

Johnny Utah

rick flair wrote: »

Hi All

There is one point you have missed which is the pivot this case revolves around and that is their defence was one of qualified priviledge. However (and a BIG however) in order to rely on this defence you need to believe that the person has stolen goods. This defence fails so many times when the defendants cannot prove that they actually believed that the person had stolen items and thats where Malice steps in for the Plaintiff.

But in this case they could prove that they had a reasonable belief that she had stolen items thus QP got them home. But that is all i would take away from this case but i would doubt if they will appeal as the matter was handled well , just as if she had stolen items on her person when she was stopped.

No, I didn't miss the point. I understand QP, but I contended that the actions of the security team were not reasonable in this case (as was reported anyway). Perhaps there are some details missing from the report, but it was stated that the shopper returned the false nails whilst still in the shop. If the security team had been doing their job properly, they would have seen this act, thereby negating any reasonable suspicion that the shopper had stolen the false nails. However, I concede that the newspaper report may be inaccurate.

Lawstud

I can't understand how this has generated so many posts. According to Hardiman J in McCormack v Adrian Olsthoorn qualified privilge applies to false accusations of theft. It is lost only on proof of malice, and it is not contingent on proof of the resonableness of the owner's suspicions.

kbell

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

Thats weird I was just talking to someone about that today how all you have to do is "look" suspicious and a power tripping gaurd will be over like lightning then run out of the shop and see what happens.

Reminds me of this....

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=FbAOlc_NT5o

Johnny Utah

Lawstud wrote: »

I can't understand how this has generated so many posts. According to Hardiman J in McCormack v Adrian Olsthoorn qualified privilge applies to false accusations of theft. It is lost only on proof of malice, and it is not contingent on proof of the resonableness of the owner's suspicions.

Of course, but where do you draw the line in terms of malice. A security guard constantly following you around and peering over your shoulder; following a person outside, grabbing them by the arm, and accusing them of theft at the top of their voice; maybe even a full strip search. A lot of retail security guards are d1ckheads on a power trip- take a look at the video above for proof!

kbell wrote: »

Reminds me of this....

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=FbAOlc_NT5o

:D:D
HaHa, brilliant. I must try that sometime.
Now, where's my cowboy hat!

Lawstud

Of course, but where do you draw the line in terms of malice. A security guard constantly following you around and peering over your shoulder; following a person outside, grabbing them by the arm, and accusing them of theft at the top of their voice; maybe even a full strip search. A lot of retail security guards are d1ckheads on a power trip- take a look at the video above for proof!

Malice only concerns the alleged defamatory words/statement. Malice is concerned with the motive and manner in which the words/statement(s) are used. Remember the defence of QP attaches to the occasion when the alleged defamatory statements are uttered not before or after.

Malice is not concened with a security guard following you around a shop following a person outside or grabing them by the arm or making them strip. The latter two actions may constitue an assault but that is separte from the concept of malice which, as stated earlier is conerned with the motive behind the words.

However, accusing a person of theft at the top of your voice may go to showing a element of malice but ultimatley it will depend on the motive behind those words and such an action may not negate the defence of QP.

rick flair

Lawstud it is settled law that (proving) malice defeats the defence of QP, also remember that QP is an absolute defence mechanism. These two features of a defamation action crossover as one can defeat the other (if malice is pleaded) but it all rests as i said before on the reasonable belief that the individual has stolen property or that they intend to deny you of your property.

Lawstud

Lawstud it is settled law that (proving) malice defeats the defence of QP, also remember that QP is an absolute defence mechanism. These two features of a defamation action crossover as one can defeat the other (if malice is pleaded) but it all rests as i said before on the reasonable belief that the individual has stolen property or that they intend to deny you of your property.

rick flair i don't know why you have addressed the foregoing oberservation to me. It does not add, subtract or negate any of my previous comments.

Once again you hinge your point on the question of the resonableness of the suspicion, which is not really relevant. As I have stated above: According to Hardiman J in McCormack v Adrian Olsthoorn qualified privilge applies to false accusations of theft. It is lost only on proof of malice, and it is not contingent on proof of the resonableness of the owner's suspicions.

If you are basing your analysis on Coleman v Keanes ltd (1946) where it was held that QP only applied if the owner had resonable grounds for his belief you need to consider this case in light of Olsthoorn which expressly rejects that approach.

IRISH RAIL

kbell wrote: »

Reminds me of this....

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=FbAOlc_NT5o

thank you for that really made me split my sides

rick flair

HI LawStud

......... once the surface has been scratched the bottom falls out.

"Once again you hinge your point on the question of the resonableness of the suspicion, which is not really relevant" are you joking, malice is a defamatory statement published with ill will, spite or (here it goes ) RECKLESSNESS (negligence).

"It is lost only on proof of malice, and it is not contingent on proof of the resonableness of the owner's suspicions" - ehhrm this statement alone contradicts settled law, in fact it contradicts common sense , you see the "resonableness of the owner's suspicions" is the test used to identify if the statement can be defined as malice. Look at Clarke and Molyneaux for a good definition on malice (1877).On the point about Coleman that case is still the most reliable piece on QP as TITK that Olsthoorn is more about personal property as oppose to private property given that private property is commonly the area in question plus the time element in Ols does not apply to most cases.

Just go over the Coleman case and Olsthoorn again but look at Halpin & Oxford Brookes , Hennesy v K Tel and also examine the reasonable belief element of QP that might clear up the chain. PS where are you studying ?

Lawstud

I would like to start off by reiterating one of my earlier posts that is: I can’t understand how this has generated so many posts. (And yes I am aware of the irony). I won’t allow myself to get sucked in the future

Rick flair you advised me to do some reading. I’m afraid I didn’t take your advice, as it wasn’t necessary. I am more than familiar with all texts and cases you cited. However perhaps you could do with re-examining those same texts and cases.

I cited the Olsthoorn case in support of my arguments. However, that case and my observations of same have been ridiculed. So with the foregoing in mind I decided to copy and paste the relevant paragraphs from Olsthoorn. I think you will find them most enlightening.

I can’t put the matter any further. This will be my last post on this issue

In an Irish case, Coleman v. Kearns Ltd. [1946] IJR 5, a butcher's accusation that a woman had stolen some bacon from a shop was held not to be privileged because it was made with the desire to recover the property, instead of a desire to bring a thief to justice. I cannot regard that decision as correct. There is no doubt that something said with a view to bringing a thief to justice is privileged, but it is not the only heading of privilege that arises in such circumstances. Privilege exists where a legally recognised duty or interest in speaking exists: in my view the legitimate desire to recover one's property is just as much a legitimate interest as the desire to bring a thief to justice. Very often these desires will co-exist. Realistically, where there is a sudden theft or suspected theft, the owner or his agent will not pause to analyse his own motives in detail but will act immediately out of an instinctive and proper desire to stop a theft. I agree with what is said on this topic in McDonald "Irish Law of Defamation" at page 149.

Equally, I have to disagree with the dictum in the judgment in Coleman v. Kearns to the effect that a person seeking to avail of the privilege "must have reasonable grounds or evidence before so acting. He must not immediately jump to a rash conclusion." I do not believe that the requirement of "reasonable grounds" is a correct statement of the law. Privilege is lost by malice, excessively wide publication or one of the other established causes. It is not lost merely because the belief turns out to be erroneous, or because the defendant was hasty. The presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the defendant's belief may be very relevant in a case where malice (that is, some improper motive) is pleaded but there is no such plea here, and on the facts, there could not have been. Having seen and heard the parties I am in event quite satisfied of Mr. Olsthoorn's bona fides and I believe that he acted as he did on the spur of the moment (delay would obviously have been fatal to his chances of recovering the plant he believed stolen) and after a most unfortunately coincidental sighting of what he believed to be a theft.

Victor

Question - how much does the proportionality of the shop keeper's action count? That is the difference between quietly taking someone aside and shout "STOP THIEF" from the rooftops.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0203/1232923384037.html

Woman loses claim against Xtra-vision

A 37-YEAR-OLD mother of three, who was wrongly accused of stealing from a video shop, has failed in her €38,000 damages claim against Xtra-vision.

A judge in the Circuit Civil Court decided that although Áine Colgan-Currie had been exonerated of any suspicion of theft, she was not entitled to succeed in a claim for defamation of character.

Judge Anthony Hunt said he was bound to apply the law of “qualified privilege” established in an earlier High Court case. On that basis, the Xtra-vision employee, who accused her of having stolen merchandise, had been entitled to approach her and question her about it.

Ms Colgan-Currie, of Cherry Park, Swords, Co Dublin, said she visited Xtra-vision in Swords in July 2007 with her three children. She told her counsel, John Fox, that she had been an Xtra-vision customer for 15 years and left the shop without making a purchase.

An employee followed her outside and accused her of having stolen items from the shop. She and her children returned to the shop where a replay of its CCTV revealed the employee had been mistaken. She told Mr Fox she and her husband were well-known in the area and the incident caused her embarrassment.

The judge agreed with Jennifer O’Connell, counsel for Xtra-vision, that Ms Colgan-Currie was not entitled to damages. He made no order as to costs.

Ms O’Connell told the court the shop manager apologised to Ms Colgan-Currie and while the company acknowledged it made a mistake, the incident occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege.

Red Sleeping Beauty

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

Thats weird I was just talking to someone about that today how all you have to do is "look" suspicious and a power tripping gaurd will be over like lightning then run out of the shop and see what happens.

I walked into a DIY superstore one quiet midweek afternoon, I was looking for a friend who was working there at the time. I was walking around each aisle to see if I could see him (so perhaps I looked dodgy?) then I found him but he was with a customer so I decided to leave. As I was walking around I sort of noticed a manager looking type checkin me out, I think he had been following me. Then when I actually left and was in the car park a security called me "Hey you," and asked me what was in my bag - I had a plastic bag with some CDs I think.

I said "nothing" and walked off....