Retail stores displaying photos of shoplifters.

Run_to_da_hills

Looking at a thread in AH, Spar are posting photos of shoplifters yet some of these guys have not been convicted, they have been photographed "on the act". Is this lawful?

I thought one could be done for shop lifting once they are caught outside the premises with the goods.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055645529

amacachi

Once they have evidence I can't see how they could get in trouble. Defamation/slander/libel is balance of probability AFAIK.

dudara

Maybe better suited to Legal Discussion.

dudara

ScouseMouse

What are they going to do about it. For a shop to do that they must be confident they can prove it. Let the scumbag sue. If the video is there, he is in for a big surprise.

Remember the guy who "slipped" in Supermacs?

The video showed him lying down! He got his comeuppance in court when he sued for injuries.

Tom Young

I'd imagine this would come within the ambit of Qualified Privilege as annunciated in the McCormack v Oolsthorn case. This is generally being upheld in Upper and Lower courts at this time.

Tom

rameire

saw this for the first time in Centra in watergrasshill.
i think it is a brilliant thing to do.
if those scum are going to steal they should be ready for a public backlash and abuse.

Paulw

Would the Data Protection Act not also come in to play? Technically a digital image of someone is covered under the Data Protection Act, so, use of their image (public display) without their consent could be a breach of this?

Any comments?

McCrack

I agree with most of the answers, more times than not the 'lifter' in the picture is well known to retailers/security officers/Gardai and has previous convictions for same or related offences.

Del2005

Paulw wrote: »

Would the Data Protection Act not also come in to play? Technically a digital image of someone is covered under the Data Protection Act, so, use of their image (public display) without their consent could be a breach of this?

Any comments?

They are only displaying images of the person in the shop. Would I get into trouble for showing pictures of people in my house in my house?

Paulw

Del2005 wrote: »

They are only displaying images of the person in the shop. Would I get into trouble for showing pictures of people in my house in my house?

Showing pictures in a shop means the image is on public display, since the shop is open to the public.

Showing an image in your home does not make it a public display but a private display of the image, so it's very different.

That's all according to the Data Protection Commissioner.

By the way, I do agree with the showing of photos of people committing a crime (shoplifting, littering, etc)

dats_right

Tom Young wrote: »

I'd imagine this would come within the ambit of Qualified Privilege as annunciated in the McCormack v Oolsthorn case. This is generally being upheld in Upper and Lower courts at this time.

Tom

I'd very much doubt that Qualified Privilege could be relied upon in this context, because in order for that defence to apply it is necessary for both the communicator of the statement and the recipient to be under a duty to make and receive it respectively. I cannot see how the public at large have any duty whatsoever to receive this information and what is more is that malice also defeats the defence and this may well also be a factor in such a publication. The case law you refer, as far as I’m aware, restricts the defence to circumstances such as actual challenges and statements made to the suspect, which later turns out to be false, within the earshot of other customers, members of the public, etc. e.g. a retailer asking a suspect what is in their bag/pocket and other customers hear same. But in those type of cases the retailer is acting in furtherance of a legal duty to protect their property and the communication to third parties, once not malicious or more than is reasonably required in the circumstances would be permissible.

In any event and far more likely, in my opinion, is that the retailer is seeking to rely on the defence of justification i.e. the truthfulness of the statement, which of course affords a full defence to a defamation claim, even if maliciously published. This is a dangerous course of action in my opinion; I certainly wouldn't be recommending publishing such photos of alleged shoplifting to the public at large, certainly not in the absence of a criminal conviction at least. As even with CCTV evidence it is at least possible that a mistake has been made, by a member of staff or by the customer i.e. not amounting to a criminal act and in either case a defamation claim would probably be successful. Furthermore, the nature of the defamation is such that it might also attract a significant award of damages against the retailer.

Tom Young

Yeah, but the issue here is that notice would have been given when the crimes were committed in the first instance via a sign that there was/is CCTV or other surveillance in operation. While it is a fine line, I suggest that there might be cause for some sort of defamation if it was proven that no offence occured and then photo's were maintained on display. Otherwise I can't see the persons in question suceeding with a complaint.

Tom

Trojan911

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Spar are posting photos of shoplifters

Does it say "Shoplifters" above the images or are they just images of people?

rubadub

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Looking at a thread in AH, Spar are posting photos of shoplifters

As I mentioned several times in that thread, they are making NO claims about them being shoplifters, NONE.

Paulw wrote: »

Would the Data Protection Act not also come in to play? Technically a digital image of someone is covered under the Data Protection Act, so, use of their image (public display) without their consent could be a breach of this?

This is all I could think of too, and somebody said it in the AH thread pointing to this

http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=m&fn=/documents/guidance/cctv.htm

Random

(i'm on mobile theme, just posting to subscribe)

faceman

From what I recall, a leading supermarket in Athlone gone in trouble for this exact thing some years ago. Although in that case, the pictures were on the security desk and not publically displayed. They had also written some along the lines of "dont let these people in due to shoplifting history" or something to that effect.

Now while the people in the snaps may have shoplifted, they were never convicted of shoplifting, therefore it was considered to be slander or defamation.

Im not trying endorse shoplifting, however i dont agree with this practise. Because its a casual practise, it runs the risk of defaming someone who is of sound character. Even though the risk of it happening may only be 1 in a 1000, its still unacceptable.

The stores/shops have a resonsilibility to prosecute shoplifters IMO. No different than Joe Public reporting a crime that he/she witnesses.

Paulw

Ok, in a similar vain .... what about displaying photos within a private development of people littering?

Since it's a private development, the litter warden doesn't want to get involved.

Any thoughts/comments?

I wonder, if it being a private development removes the issue of the images being on "public display".

Our man in Havana

I remember a few years ago the local shop had bounced cheques on the wall with the text "Do not accept cheques from these chancers".

I doubt that would be legal?

slimjimmc

A shop I know (not a supermarket) has a photo of a guy up on the glass entrance doors. It simply say this person is not allowed on these premises and makes no claims or allegations as to why. The photo, which is a full face headshot, doesn't show the person engaged in any activity and it's impossible to identify where the photo was taken because it's been photocopied so many times. The photo could have been taken on the street for all anyone knows.

I think the shop have pretty much covered themselves with this, have they?

Rainman1

I would say the contrary, I think a shop is on very shaky legal grounds, by simply making no comment on what the photos are in relationship with, it's pretty clear that the individuals images are not "Customers of the Month", a case in point is that our local Spar have the front window plastered with these images, However, I heard a group of youngsters sniggering and making the comments like " I didn't know that **** was a robbing bas****", the lad that they were referring to was clearly in the background and the perpetrator was fairly obvious, but the comment was made nonetheless, other photos were less obvious as to who was the innocent shopper and who was the shop lifter, as a local businessman who depends on my impeccable name and reputation to do business in the local area in a cut throat market, I would be hiring a bloody good lawyer if my photo ever appeared in a shops window, however, I don't shop there any more, purely to avoid this situation in the first place, as they are so sloppy about who they are targetting in these photos, I wonder how many more of their "valued customers" have taken there business elsewhere because of this ?. I'm all for catching the scrotes that are stealing from a persons business, but there are ways of doing this, not least, hiring a security guard, they may assume that they are saving money by not investing in security, but being sued for damaging an innocent persons reputation will at best cost a hell of a lot more and at worst put them out of business altogether, just my 2c worth.

Stainless_Steel

Rainman1 wrote: »

other photos were less obvious as to who was the innocent shopper and who was the shop lifter

I agree, they should only post photos with just the shop lifter in the frame.

With regard to shoplifters, are shop managers allowed to confront a person that clearly conceals an item? Or must they wait until the accussed leaves the premises?

As an ex duty manager, I used to confront the little scrouts that shoved drinks down their trousers, although the owner of the shop used to tell me to wait at the door. What's the best practice legal wise?

Our man in Havana

Always wait for them to leave before making any accusations.

Have you not ever seen people who take bags into a shop, go around placing items into their bags only for them to pay for them at the checkouts?

Stainless_Steel

Bond-007 wrote: »

Always wait for them to leave before making any accusations.

Have you not ever seen people who take bags into a shop, go around placing items into their bags only for them to pay for them at the checkouts?

Yeah that is common. Personally I didnt like that practice but the customers always paid.

So a shopkeeper could get into trouble for confronting a shop lifter before they leave the shop?

rubadub

Rainman1 wrote: »

it's pretty clear that the individuals images are not "Customers of the Month",

But common sense has really no place in a courtroom, I cannot imagine a lawyer going, "ah jaysus judge, its obvious what they are at", if it is not techinically a problem I doubt they can do anything.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Yeah that is common. Personally I didnt like that practice

I don't like the practice of shops not supplying people with baskets, like lidl & my local O'Briens offie. They used to have loads of baskets in my O'Briens and suddenly got rid of them. I expect they have to clean up a lot of extra spillage now, and I have seen customers putting down drinks they were unable to stand in the queue with so they are losing business too. -idiots... I can only think they want people to buy their tiny little "bag for life" bags.

Kess73

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Yeah that is common. Personally I didnt like that practice but the customers always paid.

So a shopkeeper could get into trouble for confronting a shop lifter before they leave the shop?

Yep, as the person with the item could claim they were going to pay for the item before leaving, and until the item has left the shop without payment, no theft has occurred.

What I found to be a better method was to make it obvious that you spotted them, without saying anything that could be termed as blaming them.


Often a simple salute with a smile, whilst looking in the general area where they put the item can be enough to cause them to take the item out and leave it in the shop.


Another thing to be careful of is when certain types make it too obvious that they are taking something, only to sneakliy drop it before leaving the store, so that security/management will ask them to stop outside the store, and the individual will then go on a rant about being accused of theft and try to get some form of compensation for his/her character being slandered.


I was involved in an incident like that where a chancer (who was the son of a high ranking Garda) tried it on, but unfortunately for him the complex cameras outside the store caught him throwing the item through the open window of his parked car.

He demanded that the gardai be called when he was asked to stop, and he went off on one inside the store, throwing items from shelves and trying to square up with the security gaurd and I. Then the Gardai arrived and were shown both the store footage, and the complex manager showed them his footage.

At this point the guy admitted it and calmly told the Gardai he was off, and then lost it again when they said he was going nowhere.

About sixty minutes later he arrived at the store again with a camera and took pictures of both me and the security gaurd and told us we would be shot. Gardai were called again, and again he denied being in the store, and said he was just standing outside. Again the footage was looked at, and again he was caught out.


To make a long story short, he was finally called to court and received a warning, but the moral of the story is always be 100% sure when asking someone to stop outside the store, because even the guilty ones, more so than anyone else imho, will roar the house down and try to get you to back down with noise.

If there is any doubt at all that the person may not have the item on them anymore, let them walk.

Stainless_Steel

rubadub wrote: »

I don't like the practice of shops not supplying people with baskets, like lidl & my local O'Briens offie. They used to have loads of baskets in my O'Briens and suddenly got rid of them. I expect they have to clean up a lot of extra spillage now, and I have seen customers putting down drinks they were unable to stand in the queue with so they are losing business too. -idiots... I can only think they want people to buy their tiny little "bag for life" bags.

Agree 100%. But we always had baskets and 2 sizes of trolley, so annoyed me a bit that customers used their bags. But yes, very annoying when you're expected to carry everything.

Kess73 wrote: »

If there is any doubt at all that the person may not have the item on them anymore, let them walk.

Interesting story and I have experience of "customers" going mental when you confront them, not a nice experience. Thankfully I'm out of the retail game.

Rainman1

rubadub wrote: »

But common sense has really no place in a courtroom, I cannot imagine a lawyer going, "ah jaysus judge, its obvious what they are at", if it is not techinically a problem I doubt they can do anything.

Well not really, I know from my own work that taking images of people and displaying them without a persons consent is taken VERY seriously in the courtroom, it directly contravines the data protection act and you can find yourself up for libel and defamation very quickly if you're not careful about how you handle a persons image, I was at a hearing in the UK, where a girl was suing for defamation under the data protection act because the company she worked for placed her image (without her consent) on the intranet, under an article outlying the companies policy on theft and unruly behaviour, the next article was actually a congratulatory note to her for been captain of the women's hocky team that won that year, but her image looked like she was being associated with the theft and unruly behaviour section of the intranet, bottom line was she won the case. A shot of somebody in a shop window could easliy be interpeted in the same way against the business, the law is far from a logical, points and facts animal, and it's only when you get to see it in action that this point is brought home, common sense is very much a tool used by the lawyers when arguing a case, I never understood the expression "The law is an ass" until I attended that case.

slimjimmc

Rainman1 wrote: »

Well not really, I know from my own work that taking images of people and displaying them without a persons consent is taken VERY seriously in the courtroom, it directly contravines the data protection act and you can find yourself up for libel and defamation very quickly if you're not careful about how you handle a persons image, I was at a hearing in the UK, where a girl was suing for defamation under the data protection act because the company she worked for placed her image (without her consent) on the intranet, under an article outlying the companies policy on theft and unruly behaviour, the next article was actually a congratulatory note to her for been captain of the women's hocky team that won that year, but her image looked like she was being associated with the theft and unruly behaviour section of the intranet, bottom line was she won the case. A shot of somebody in a shop window could easliy be interpeted in the same way against the business, the law is far from a logical, points and facts animal, and it's only when you get to see it in action that this point is brought home, common sense is very much a tool used by the lawyers when arguing a case, I never understood the expression "The law is an ass" until I attended that case.

Can you provide a link to the specific section in the data protection act because I always heard you can freely take a person's image and display it without their consent so long as the photo was taken in a public place, or am I mistaken? How many TV crews or newspapers go around requesting the public to sign a consent form before broadcasting or publishing a photo of a busy street scene?

It's how you use that photo that can get you knee deep in liable suits etc, but if the photo was taken in a public place then I don't see how the DP act takes effect.

Our man in Havana

If the picture is retained for a purpose that is at odds with the DPA there is a problem.

Rainman1

[QUOTE=slimjimmc;61853139How many TV crews or newspapers go around requesting the public to sign a consent form before broadcasting or publishing a photo of a busy street scene?.[/QUOTE]

It's an interesting point, the DP act is notoriously vague, but what is clear for us in the IT business is that you cannot store information about a person without their consent, and a digital image of the person falls under that category. Whether or not this applies to a photographic image in a shop window taken in a public place, I've no idea. For me the idea that my image could be placed in a shop window, where shoplifting is clearly implied and my reputation could be irreversably damaged, has to be covered somewhere in law, to say that a shot of an innocent person placed in a shop window, where the insinuation is obvious, is fine because it was taken in a public place rests uneasily with me, but that could be the case, not being a lawyer, I don't know.