wrongfully accused

mufcboy1999

hope this is the right place feel free to move it if its not.

long story short, was out the weekend and walked past a shop with a burger and can of coke that i got in the chipper and all of sudden i was dragged into a local shop by the bouncer and was accused of robbing the can of coke i had in my hand from the chipper.

i tried explaining to them i got it free with the burger in the meal deal but they were having none of it even though i had the burger in my hand. the shop keeper who i think was the owner was also accusing me.

they wouldn't let me leave the shop and trapped me in there till the gards came claiming they have me on camera, i still tried reasing with them even offered to go over to the chipper and prove i bought it.

when the gards came the bouncer who was 100 per cent convinced i robbed it started telling the gards etc, i demanded for the bouncer to show the gards and me this imaginary footage that they had but they didn't.

so i asked the gards to come over to the chipper and let me prove i bought the can of coke but he said there's no need and just took me details, i think the gard took my word considering i had the burger in my hand.

i have a witness who saw the bouncer dragging me in off the street and accusing me of robbing aswell as trapping me in the shop till the garda arrived and repeatedly stating we have you on camera.

i contacted my solicter and asked him to get the video footage of me being dragged into shop etc.

im not in this for a quick buck, but i mean if the shoe was on the other foot and i did rob the can im sure they would bring me to court, they embarrassed me big time in front of a lot of people some i knew aswell me being a customer as i live up the road from the shop, i can even go in there anymore.

as far as i know the shop's insurance company have contacted my solicter, im just wondering how long will this go on? and does anyone have a similar experience, does it have to go to court etc?

thanks

Zambia

At this piont write everything down every time witness etc.

Especially write down how this has made you feel. Then in a few weeks when suing seems like a lot of hassle read back over this.

You have spoken to a solicitor, good man I would sue. If you dont next week he may pick on someone else. Be sure to get the attending Gardas details.

Best of luck

Lawstudent1

Wouldn't the issue of false imprisonment also arise? I would think that false imprisonment combined with slander would probably mean a nice pay out to you if the court finds in your favour. Going on some of the compensation awarded in similar, previous cases maybe a couple of grand. Or would I be way off the mark here?

Wolfe Tone

False imprisonment, defamation and battery.


There is no defense of reasonable suspicion for the security guard either. Good you went to a solicitor. Teach those bastards a lesson. Don't feel guilty about it, it is your right.

MagicSean

If a can of coke was stolen and the security guard had reason to believe you had stolen it he can arrest you under section 4 of the criminal law act 1997 and hand you over to the Gardaí as soon as possible. In your particular case he would have to prove a can of coke had been stolen and that he had good reason to believe you stole it.

Wolfe Tone

k_mac wrote: »

If a can of coke was stolen and the security guard had reason to believe you had stolen it he can arrest you under section 4 of the criminal law act 1997 and hand you over to the Gardaí as soon as possible. In your particular case he would have to prove a can of coke had been stolen and that he had good reason to believe you stole it.

Thats wrong. He has to be 100% right. The theft actually has to occur. As a member of the public he has no excuse of believing it was stolen, that excuse only works for Gardaí.

Pkiernan

IMO the OP should follow this to the end.

Speak with a solicitor and ask about battery charges against the bouncer and other charges against the shopkeeper.

It's not about a quick buck - you were assaulted and held against your will, and more a victim of crime than the shopkeeper who had a can of coke nicked.

adamshred

OP, I say take them to town for compensation and make sure they don't make the same mistake again :cool:

I'd be furious if someone done that to me. It's a can of coke . . and you explained clearly why you had it and how you obtained it.

Therefore I could conclude with confidence that the Criminal law act (section 4) is invalidated in this case because after you explained yourself, the bouncer didn't have reasonable cause to suspect you to be guilty of the offence.

You repeatedly offered to illustrate to them the reasons why you had the can etc. so I would definitely make every attempt to get compensation from these idiots.

MagicSean

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats wrong. He has to be 100% right. The theft actually has to occur. As a member of the public he has no excuse of believing it was stolen, that excuse only works for Gardaí.

He only has to be 100% that a can was stolen. He only needs reasonable suspicion the person he detains did it.

MagicSean

adamshred wrote: »

I'd be furious if someone done that to me. It's a can of coke . . and you explained clearly why you had it and how you obtained it.

Therefore I could conclude with confidence that the Criminal law act (section 4) is invalidated in this case because after you explained yourself, the bouncer didn't have reasonable cause to suspect you to be guilty of the offence

He only needs to justify the original arrest. As allowed by the statute he kept the op until the gardaí took him. If he had released him he would be conceding he had little to no reason to arrest him in the first place. And it doesn't really matter what the op said to him. Thieves lie all the time so I doubt he listened (I'm not calling the op a thief). We don't know what evidence the security guard had in this case so we really can't decide if he had reasonable grounds or not. That will be for a judge to decide.

Lawstudent1

Did the security guard not essentially commit a citizens arrest? In which case I would have thought that the offence would have to be considered an "arrestable offence" i.e containing a minimum prison term of 5 years or more.

Doom

Also check to see if security guard is registered too.

Wolfe Tone

k_mac wrote: »

He only has to be 100% that a can was stolen. He only needs reasonable suspicion the person he detains did it.

Sorry, I was speaking with regards to suing for defamation. No defense of suspicion for that.

bobbytables

OP that is shocking stuff :eek:, sorry you had to go through that.

k_mac wrote: »

If a can of coke was stolen and the security guard had reason to believe you had stolen it he can arrest you under section 4 of the criminal law act 1997 and hand you over to the Gardaí as soon as possible. In your particular case he would have to prove a can of coke had been stolen and that he had good reason to believe you stole it.

I would imagine it's not difficult to prove a can of coke was stolen, but surely for the guards to get involved in such a petty crime I would imagine that reliable evidence would be required to prosecute the accused. The notion of "good reason to believe" sounds way too ambiguous. I wonder what criteria would satisfy "good reason to believe", because I anticipate the answer is riddled with holes, and considering the OP never entered the shop in advance of being accused I'd love to know how this clause could be satisfied.

Also I think it's a farce that the Gardai's consideration for the claims from either party was left unbalanced (in favor of the shop). I base this on the fact that the OP offered to immediately introduce strong evidence to support his claim, which was ultimately ignored, while the shop did not have any strong evidence to offer.

MagicSean

Lawstudent1 wrote: »

Did the security guard not essentially commit a citizens arrest? In which case I would have thought that the offence would have to be considered an "arrestable offence" i.e containing a minimum prison term of 5 years or more.

Theft is an arrestable offence.

bobbytables wrote: »

I would imagine it's not difficult to prove a can of coke was stolen, but surely for the guards to get involved in such a petty crime I would imagine that reliable evidence would be required to prosecute the accused. The notion of "good reason to believe" sounds way too ambiguous. I wonder what criteria would satisfy "good reason to believe", because I anticipate the answer is riddled with holes, and considering the OP never entered the shop in advance of being accused I'd love to know how this clause could be satisfied.

A theft is a theft. It doesn't matter how much it's for. Most professional shoplifters start small anyway. I can't imagine any criminal prosecutions arising out of this incident. As i said, we don't know what grounds the scurity guard had. Maybe the op matched a description given by a member of staff. Who knows. The reasonable grounds is decided on an objective basis.

bobbytables wrote: »

Also I think it's a farce that the Gardai's consideration for the claims from either party was left unbalanced (in favor of the shop). I base this on the fact that the OP offered to immediately introduce strong evidence to support his claim, which was ultimately ignored, while the shop did not have any strong evidence to offer.

I don't know what you mean here. The seems to believe the Garda did believe him.

Nolanger

There's a reason I always ask for a receipt in the chipper.

mufcboy1999

cheers for all the help lads, too many to reply to individually.

ye after reading through all the feedback i am 100 per cent going to follow through with this, its too much of a thing not too (pride wise) i have to walk past that shop every day as i live up the road.

the fact that i could get some money is a bonus but im really doing this to clear me name and to get one back on the bouncer and the shopkeeper, because i cant begin to explain how pi**ed of i was that night and even how much it bothers me now 2 weeks later.

my solicter said if they dont provide the video footage it will even look worse on their behalf, because really the video will show it all, i mean a bouncer cant just come of the premises he works on and start dragging people in and throw false accusations around.

thanks again and il let you know how i get on in the next few weeks/months.

Our man in Havana

Best of luck with it.

johnnyskeleton

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

False imprisonment, defamation and battery.


There is no defense of reasonable suspicion for the security guard either. Good you went to a solicitor. Teach those bastards a lesson. Don't feel guilty about it, it is your right.

Not commenting on the OP's post, but this is not correct. McCormack v. Olsthoorn.

Wolfe Tone

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not commenting on the OP's post, but this is not correct. McCormack v. Olsthoorn.

Really? Was near 100% sure there was no defense of reasonable suspicion with regards to the defamation part at least.

johnnyskeleton

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Really? Was near 100% sure there was no defense of reasonable suspicion with regards to the defamation part at least.

It's called qualified privilege as a defence and can be defeated by malice.

Dampsquid

In this case, if the OP resisted his detention by the bouncer. What force can he use (legally) in doing so.

Zambia

Is there an Irish clause now that allows an arrest still to be lawfull if later proved that the arrested person was innocent?

Was there always??

murrayp4

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not commenting on the OP's post, but this is not correct. McCormack v. Olsthoorn.

Thanks johnnyskeleton....I was going insane trying to remember that case. Wasn't it about theft of something daft like a plant??

MagicSean

Zambia232 wrote: »

Is there an Irish clause now that allows an arrest still to be lawfull if later proved that the arrested person was innocent?

Was there always??

Yes. Otherwise the court case would have to come before the arrest.

Zambia

Ah my bad I mean by a member of the public.

Lawstudent1

k_mac wrote: »

Theft is an arrestable offence.

But theft does not impose a minimum 5 year sentence so surely it would not be deemed an "arrestable offence" for the purposes of executing a citizens arrest?

MagicSean

Lawstudent1 wrote: »

But theft does not impose a minimum 5 year sentence so surely it would not be deemed an "arrestable offence" for the purposes of executing a citizens arrest?

As a law student I would have thought you could at least look up the Theft Act before making assumptions. This is from Section 4.

(6) A person guilty of theft is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

Zambia

I believe in Ireland citizens arrests are limited to indictable offences. Regardless of sentences possible.

MagicSean

Zambia232 wrote: »

I believe in Ireland citizens arrests are limited to indictable offences. Regardless of sentences possible.

The offence must carry the possibility of five years imprisonment on a first conviction.

trad

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0014/sec0004.html#sec4


Arrest without warrant.
4.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), where an arrestable offence has been committed, any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an arrestable offence has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant anyone whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(4) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may only be effected by a person under subsection (1) or (2) where he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(5) A person who is arrested pursuant to this section by a person other than a member of the Garda Síochána shall be transferred into the custody of the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable.

(6) This section shall not affect the operation of any enactment restricting the institution of proceedings for an offence or prejudice any power of arrest conferred by law apart from this section.

trad

Also advice from a leading lawfirm on the matter of dealing with shoplifting

http://www.mop.ie/dynamic/files/Litigation%20Dept%20Practical%20Steps%20for%20retailers%20in%20dealing%20with%20shoplifters%20PW%20Shelflife%2019%20June.pdf

Lawstudent1

k_mac wrote: »

The offence must carry the possibility of five years imprisonment on a first conviction.

That clears things up. So in order to make a citizens arrest the crime does not have to carry a 5 year sentence or more it simply has to carry the possibility of a 5 year sentence or more. So in this case the bouncer was perfectly entitled to make the citizens arrest as even though the matter only concerned the theft of a can of coke it would still come under the crime of theft. Therefore as there is a possibility that the crime of theft could carry a sentence of 5 years or more the bouncer was entitled to arrest him. Is that right or am I way off?

MagicSean

Lawstudent1 wrote: »

That clears things up. So in order to make a citizens arrest the crime does not have to carry a 5 year sentence or more it simply has to carry the possibility of a 5 year sentence or more. So in this case the bouncer was perfectly entitled to make the citizens arrest as even though the matter only concerned the theft of a can of coke it would still come under the crime of theft. Therefore as there is a possibility that the crime of theft could carry a sentence of 5 years or more the bouncer was entitled to arrest him. Is that right or am I way off?

The bouncer must know that a theft has been committed. So in this case he would have to show for definite a can of coke had been stolen from the shop. He must then justify why he believed the op had stolen the can.

WildOscar

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

cheers for all the help lads, too many to reply to individually.

ye after reading through all the feedback i am 100 per cent going to follow through with this, its too much of a thing not too (pride wise) i have to walk past that shop every day as i live up the road.

the fact that i could get some money is a bonus but im really doing this to clear me name and to get one back on the bouncer and the shopkeeper, because i cant begin to explain how pi**ed of i was that night and even how much it bothers me now 2 weeks later.

my solicter said if they dont provide the video footage it will even look worse on their behalf, because really the video will show it all, i mean a bouncer cant just come of the premises he works on and start dragging people in and throw false accusations around.

thanks again and il let you know how i get on in the next few weeks/months.

under data protection they will have to give it

Our man in Havana

Of course it may not even exist or may be deleted already.

Wolfe Tone

murrayp4 wrote: »

Thanks johnnyskeleton....I was going insane trying to remember that case. Wasn't it about theft of something daft like a plant??

Yeah, a tomato plant!
Here it is here:
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/431.html
I read

The plaintiff had a legal right to protect his property and in doing so to "tax" an individual whom he suspected of a theft.

Does that imply that if the plaintiff was just some random bloke with no connection to the property it would be different?

Fascinating stuff. Would the 2009 defamation act have any affect on that?

OP may be interested in this:

In relation to the balance of the claims, I accept that the plaintiff was, albeit very briefly, technically assaulted and falsely imprisoned. The latter simply means that he was (briefly) deprived of his liberty to go where he wanted. I am satisfied that there was no real violence in the assault which I believe consisted of grabbing the plaintiff by the arm. I believe that the episode lasted, if only by five or ten seconds, longer than the defendant now recalls and that there was some element of propulsion towards the shop. Any level of force whatever was quite unnecessary in respect of a man who, even if his utter respectability was unknown to the defendant, cannot have presented as being a risk of violence or of escape. No physical harm was done but the plaintiff was technically assaulted, briefly deprived of his liberty and as a result of this was very understandably upset distressed and shocked. This is a most unfortunate thing to happen to anyone, and particularly to a man of advancing years. But it was by no means a very grave episode. I am satisfied that the defendant resiled from his position within a very short time and I happy to note the very ample apology his solicitor made in correspondence. I must also consider that the defendant contradicted the plaintiff in certain respects where I am satisfied the plaintiff is both truthful and accurate and this must have added to his distress.

In all the circumstances I will make an award to the plaintiff in respect of assault and false imprisonment of €3,500.00.

WildOscar

here is an intersting and true scenario
old fogey lives alone in country with fondness for drink. He gets a christmas tree for someone in town and drags it over his shoulder about 6 miles to town. he passes a shop where christmas trees are on sale in the doorway. the owner looks out and 'sees' someone heading off, as he thinks with a tree from his shop and calls the gardai. Old fogey sues successfuly, not sure how much he got.

You couldn't make it up but its true

McCrack

k_mac wrote: »

The bouncer must know that a theft has been committed. So in this case he would have to show for definite a can of coke had been stolen from the shop. He must then justify why he believed the op had stolen the can.

K mac youre on shaky grounds to say that. Thats a strict interpretation of the law of arrest but in reality if a citizen arrests pursuant to Criminal Law Act 1997 he/she is wide open to be sued if the detainee has not in fact commited an arrestable offence notwithstanding 'reasonable grounds'.

Reasonable grounds or suspicion is best left to police officers and others exercising investigative powers.

MagicSean

McCrack wrote: »

K mac youre on shaky grounds to say that. Thats a strict interpretation of the law of arrest but in reality if a citizen arrests pursuant to Criminal Law Act 1997 he/she is wide open to be sued if the detainee has not in fact commited an arrestable offence notwithstanding 'reasonable grounds'.

Reasonable grounds or suspicion is best left to police officers and others exercising investigative powers.

So the meaning of the law should be ignored? Is there much case law to support this? If this is the case it kind of makes the legislation useless.

McCrack

No I'm obviously not saying the meaning of the law be ignored but sometimes a literal interpretation does not hold water in our courts. In these particular instances the courts don't give any indulgence to citizens making arrests on reasonable suspicion or good cause.

A citizen be it in the role of security officer or whatever needs to be 100% certain and in theft situations be able to produce the item stolen if making an arrest.

It's no use saying so and so took something, concealed it and left the shop or whatever only to find that the item isnt on the arrested person.

Prolific and well known thiefs have sucessfully sued for false imprisonment and assault/battery against security companies/shops notwithstanding the arresting citizen had reasonable grounds to suspect.

Wolfe Tone

McCrack wrote: »

No I'm obviously not saying the meaning of the law be ignored but sometimes a literal interpretation does not hold water in our courts. In these particular instances the courts don't give any indulgence to citizens making arrests on reasonable suspicion or good cause.

A citizen be it in the role of security officer or whatever needs to be 100% certain and in theft situations be able to produce the item stolen if making an arrest.

It's no use saying so and so took something, concealed it and left the shop or whatever only to find that the item isnt on the arrested person.

Prolific and well known thiefs have sucessfully sued for false imprisonment and assault/battery against security companies/shops notwithstanding the arresting citizen had reasonable grounds to suspect.

Thank you, I knew I did not imagine what I said earlier.