Question about the law

Dublindude69

I don't know where to post this.
In the law it states if someone it shoplifting they must leave the store with the item before they can be busted for it. If you take a can of coke from the shelf and put it in your pocket the security can't do anything until you leave.
My question is what if you have Ipods behind the counted and you caught someone sneaking in behind the counter and trying to put an Ipod into their pocket. Could you call the guardi about that or would they still have to leave the store with it?

TheZohanS

Try Legal Discussion.

Dublindude69

In the law it states if someone it shoplifting they must leave the store with the item before they can be busted for it. If you take a can of coke from the shelf and put it in your pocket the security can't do anything until you leave.
My question is what if you have Ipods behind the counted and you caught someone sneaking in behind the counter and trying to put an Ipod into their pocket. Could you call the guardi about that or would they still have to leave the store with it?

Adam

what about if you drink the coke in the store??

profit.

thankswhore

You could call the gards because his intent is obvious, he probably would not be convicted

prinz

Dublindude69 wrote: »

My question is what if you have Ipods behind the counted and you caught someone sneaking in behind the counter and trying to put an Ipod into their pocket. Could you call the guardi about that or would they still have to leave the store with it?

You call the gardaí, behind the counter is not a place for a member of the public to be without valid reason/an invitation.

J K

when they step behind the counter with intent to steal they have committed offence of burglary.


The key word here is 'part of any building' which for your case means part of the premises where public do not have access ie behind counter.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0012.html

Biggins

You could call the guards to question the persons intent.
Its still illegal to take certain actions that might lead up a breaking of the law so if one is "preparing" by action to crate an oppertunity for possible law breaking, another person is within their rights to call on a proper authority to look into the matter!

NothingMan

Just stop stealing stuff!

AlmightyCushion

Moved from after hours

Jo King

Dublindude69 wrote: »

I don't know where to post this.
In the law it states if someone it shoplifting they must leave the store with the item before they can be busted for it. If you take a can of coke from the shelf and put it in your pocket the security can't do anything until you leave.

That is not correct. The prosecution have to prove an intention to steal. It is easier to prove if someone has left the store but it is not impossible. Plenty of people have been caught going through checkout paying for some items and trying to hide others. Concealing items on ones person in a shop is evidence from which it may be inferred a person has stolen the item.

The particular piece of law you refer to is the difference between an invitation to treat and an offer in contract terms. An item on a shelf which may be picked up and brought to the counter constitutes an invitation to treat. This means the store is making it known that they will listen to offers from members of the public for goods on display in their stores. Since you are required to bring the object to the counter yourself there is nothing illegal in having it in your possession (for the most part) until you get there. Attempting to leave the store with it without proper payment would amount to theft.

However, where an item is behind the counter you have no justifiable reason to have it in your possession prior to purchase and, therefore, if you were to take one and have it in your possession that would reasonably be assumed to be an attempt on your part to deny the proper owner reasonable enjoyment. Since their reasonable enjoyment is the display of the item away from public reach for the purposes of sale then you could be adjudged guilty of theft.

In short, call the Gardai.

MagicSean

Dublindude69 wrote: »

In the law it states if someone it shoplifting they must leave the store with the item before they can be busted for it. If you take a can of coke from the shelf and put it in your pocket the security can't do anything until you leave.
My question is what if you have Ipods behind the counted and you caught someone sneaking in behind the counter and trying to put an Ipod into their pocket. Could you call the guardi about that or would they still have to leave the store with it?

What law is this?

Reloc8

I think what might clear it all up is the fact that a person who attempts to commit an offence commits an offence (People (AG v Thornton). An attempt to commit a statutory offence (theft) is an offence at common law, unless the attempt is specifically a statutory offence (e.g. attempted murder) There is no such (statutory) offence as attempted theft hence an attempt to thieve is a common law offence (indictable).

There is loads of law on what constitutes an attempt - is it an act preparatory, an unequivocal act towards the commission of the target offence, can you attempt a crime of recklessness, is abandonment a defence to name a few.

One of the reason's you'll not see attempted theft for shoplifters who are intercepted before leaving a shop is because of all that complexity in respect of minor offending. You will however see attempted burglaries and attempted robberies being prosecuted.

The issue in other words is not one of principle (can a person who only prepares to steal be prosecuted) but practice (is it worth doing so where no loss is caused).

Before you ever get on to that anyway, Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2001 provides that theft is committed where a person dishonestly appropriates property with the intention of depriving the owner of it, without consent of the owner. 'Appropriates' is defined in S. 4(5) as being to usurp or adversely interferes with the proprietary rights of the owner of the property and depriving means temporary or permantently depriving.

So taking a can of coke from the shelf (OP) and sticking it into your pocket could well constitute theft if a court is satisfied that you had the intention of depriving the owner of it without consent - you having appropriated it.

Such a prosecution would founder on reasonable doubt if the accused gave credible evidence that he/she slipped it into their pocket innocently intending to pay before leaving. There would however be no issue with a security guard intercepting the person before leaving the premises on a reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence had been committed etc.

You could well illustrate this by considering the difference between the following acts : put can of coke in pocket versus put can of coke in shopping trolley. Common sense says that in the latter case there is no offence committed until the person leaves without paying whereas in the former, there may be the offence of attempted theft or even just theft, contrary to S. 4 of the 2001 Act.

D.McC

Dublindude69 wrote: »

In the law it states if someone it shoplifting they must leave the store with the item before they can be busted for it. If you take a can of coke from the shelf and put it in your pocket the security can't do anything until you leave.
My question is what if you have Ipods behind the counted and you caught someone sneaking in behind the counter and trying to put an Ipod into their pocket. Could you call the guardi about that or would they still have to leave the store with it?

Shoplifting is not a criminal offence, theft is.

Adam wrote: »

what about if you drink the coke in the store??


profit.

That would amount to Criminal Damage if you later didn’t pay for the item.

J K wrote: »

when they step behind the counter with intent to steal they have committed offence of burglary.

Damm, :eek: you have to get in quick around here, thats what I would have said.

Jo King wrote: »

That is not correct. The prosecution have to prove an intention to steal. It is easier to prove if someone has left the store but it is not impossible. Plenty of people have been caught going through checkout paying for some items and trying to hide others. Concealing items on ones person in a shop is evidence from which it may be inferred a person has stolen the item.

A lot of experienced security personnel would detain a well known shoplifter for what is termed within the industry as concealment. Also, the use of a foil lined or frozen food bags would be evidence that the offence of theft had been committed.

Given the accused prior history of theft it would be easy to prove theft at a later court date.

Reloc8 wrote: »

There would however be no issue with a security guard intercepting the person before leaving the premises on a reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence had been committed etc.

Suspicion of an offence is not enough grounds for security personnel to take action. Security must have proof beyond reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed.

Example – Store worker informs security the person A has placed something in their pocket. Person A then pass’s the last payment point in the store.

In this case, the security person is powerless to act, unless it is in an escort role to the store worker who witnessed the offence been committed and is therefore the person empowered to detain Person A for the offence of theft.

MagicSean

D.McC wrote: »

the use of a foil lined or frozen food bags would be evidence that the offence of theft had been committed.

There is a seperate offence for having these items.

dermot_sheehan

As indicated earlier there is no requirement to leave the store for the offence of theft to have been committed, it occurs when there is dishonesty appropriation.

The confusion about leaving the store is probably due to the fact that before the Criminal Justice (Fraud and Theft) Offences Act 2001 came into force, the offence was larceny contrary to the larceny act 1916.

One of the essential elements of larceny was "asportation", the prosecution had to prove that the Defendant carried off the item in question, which for shoplifting meant leaving the shop.

This is not a requirement in proving the offence of theft under the 2001 act.

D.McC

k_mac wrote: »

There is a seperate offence for having these items.

You're right! But I was trying to show that placing an item into a bag like that, or even into a pocket lined with foil by an experinenced and well known shoplifter would be enough for the security personel to effect an arrest.

Reloc8

D.McC wrote: »

Shoplifting is not a criminal offence, theft is.

*koffnonsense*

D.McC wrote: »

A lot of experienced security personnel would detain a well known shoplifter for what is termed within the industry as concealment. Also, the use of a foil lined or frozen food bags would be evidence that the offence of theft had been committed.

Given the accused prior history of theft it would be easy to prove theft at a later court date.

Are you suggesting system evidence applies ? Or just that you can rely on previous convictions to prove guilt ?

Whatever it is known as eh within the industry (?) concealment is not a term of art in law in this context.

D.McC wrote: »

Suspicion of an offence is not enough grounds for security personnel to take action. Security must have proof beyond reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed.

*koffmorenonsense* Where an arrestable offence has been committed a citizen can arrest on the basis of having 'reasonable cause to believe' that the person arrested person has committed same. S. 4(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1997.

D.McC wrote: »

Example – Store worker informs security the person A has placed something in their pocket. Person A then pass’s the last payment point in the store.

In this case, the security person is powerless to act, unless it is in an escort role to the store worker who witnessed the offence been committed and is therefore the person empowered to detain Person A for the offence of theft.

*koffmoremorenonsense* See section 4(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1997 it is not necessary to witness the offence, simply that one has been committed and the person arresting reasonable cause to suspect that the person detained committed it.

No offence DmC but I don't know where you get your information from and it is demonstrably wrong.

Zambia

I think Gabhain is on the money above. Remember that security staff have to be trained and the amount of training is not extensive. So if you are training security staff best you instruct them to only arrest when there is the least chance they can f**k it up.

Because if they do its going to come straight out of your insurance. When the person sues your firm.

So the training went like this

• You see them take it
• You dont let them leave your sight
• You see them leave without paying then you arrest them

In the effort to make it as simple as possible for the security training.

If you where good enough you could well arrest if you could prove the person dishonestly took the item with the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof. [Note this is pre the 2001 act].

Because the law [that law ]says nothing about check outs shop doors etc.

So you are not proving they left the shop you are proving they intended to deprieve the owner.

Reloc8

I completely agree that security staff should only step in at a late stage in the process - i.e. ideally they observe, continue to observe, follow and then intervene where paypoints are passed.

Or they are advised by someone else that an item is in the person's possession, observe, continue to observe, follow and then intervene where paypoints are passed.

Its also extremely important that they use appropriate language and do so discretely and with the minimum of fuss.

They are entitled to put hands on someone but only if that person has refused to accompany them back to the shop and they must still have the basic reasonable cause to believe the person has taken something without paying.

They have absolutely no power to search anyone, and must on effecting a detention contact gardai immediately.

And if there is a garda close by they should call the garda over rather than intervene themselves.

That's all practical points, over and above the theoretical question being asked here, but worth bearing in mind nonetheless.

foxyfeckinloxy

I order for a conviction you have to prove that that they intended to deprive you of said property. So yea they have to leave the store having said that drinking or eating certainly applies. With the downturn Judges are getting sick to the teeth of shoplifters. Just call the cops they will do the rest.