If you are accused of theft, can you be refused access to CCTV

breathn

Hey all,
I read this interesting blog post from a girl in the uk who was accused of theft in a tesco, and when she asked to see the CCTV of the alleged incident, she was refused with data protection being used as an excuse.

I'd love to know if that would apply in Ireland.

If any business within ROI accused you of theft, is refusing to show there and then (or provide a copy of) the CCTV footage on data protection grounds legit?

Zambia

She has no right to see the footage, however she should be suing.

MagicSean

First of all, what a stuck-up bitch she is.

If the same situation were to arise in Ireland you would not be entitled to see the cctv footage unless you were befroe a court. Depending on the circumstances you may be able to prosecute for false imprisonment or assault with a civil suit to accompany it.

Zambia

Yes it never fails to amaze me how some people think their income should be taken into account in cases like that.

mikemac

What a snob
Going on about her expensive handbag.
And what's wrong with Aldi? She probably reckons it's for poor people and immigrants.

She has the option of bringing a civil case and the court can request the CCTV
Seems she isn't going to

breathn

I don't want the handbag stuff to derail this thread.

Thats REALLY interesting, i never knew you couldn't see the cctv without going to court.

What are someones options if they are about to be detained infront of a crowd. Could she flatly refuse and just walk out? Or could she just pick up her phone and ring the guards and refuse to move (could they then say she was causing a disturbance?)

MapForJ

Not even if she makes a data protection request?

Monty Burnz

Let me tell you, watching a rude and uncouth man rummaging through the contents of your handbag, (tampons, Chanel lipstick, crumbs, Porsche keys, toy cars, spare knickers etc) is a really degrading experience.

I'm sure he'll get over it.

blueythebear

MapForJ wrote: »

Not even if she makes a data protection request?

If she was arrested and charged with theft, then she would be entitled to the video footage based on her right to fair trial.

If she wished to take a civil case (false imprisonment, etc), she would be entitlted to apply via discovery for the footage (although by that stage, it could very well have been destroyed).

If she made a data protection request, she should also be able to get the footage but the likely outcome is that the supermarket would just claim it was destroyed rather than having to give the tape to her.

MapForJ

mikemac wrote: »

What a snob
Going on about her expensive handbag.

she sure is a stuck up snob but they had no right to treat her like that either

blueythebear

breathn wrote: »

I don't want the handbag stuff to derail this thread.

Thats REALLY interesting, i never knew you couldn't see the cctv without going to court.

What are someones options if they are about to be detained infront of a crowd. Could she flatly refuse and just walk out? Or could she just pick up her phone and ring the guards and refuse to move (could they then say she was causing a disturbance?)

She could just walk out. They have no power to detain her.

MapForJ

blueythebear wrote: »

If she was arrested and charged with theft, then she would be entitled to the video footage based on her right to fair trial.

If she wished to take a civil case (false imprisonment, etc), she would be entitlted to apply via discovery for the footage (although by that stage, it could very well have been destroyed).

If she made a data protection request, she should also be able to get the footage but the likely outcome is that the supermarket would just claim it was destroyed rather than having to give the tape to her.

that would seem to suggest they do not respect the act and the DPC may be able to take action

I know a situation whwere tesco ireland ignored a dp request and had to pay 750 euro to the applicant. He was not accused of anything

MagicSean

blueythebear wrote: »

She could just walk out. They have no power to detain her.

Unless she actually has committed an offence. In which case they can arrest her and hand her to the Gardaí.

blueythebear

MapForJ wrote: »

that would seem to suggest they do not respect the act and the DPC may be able to take action

I know a situation whwere tesco ireland ignored a dp request and had to pay 750 euro to the applicant. He was not accused of anything

If it's ignored, then the Data Protection Commissioner will dole out fines etc. I'm saying it's likely that in such a scenario, the supermarket will respond by saying that the data has been destroyed and the Data PRotection Commissioner can generally take no action against them in such a scenario..

usernamegoes

blueythebear wrote: »

She could just walk out. They have no power to detain her.

I can't recall exactly so I am open to correction, but is it not the case that where an arrestable offence i.e. 5 years or more upon conviction has in fact been committed and a person has reasonable belief it was you that committed the offence they can detain you.

This being distinct from knowing that you committed the offence, but rather knowing an offence was committed and believing it to be you.

blueythebear

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Unless she actually has committed an offence. In which case they can arrest her and hand her to the Gardaí.

Knew this would come up!

They would also have to believe that she would attempt to evade arrest by the Gardaí. Probably would not be a reasonably held belief if she had three kids with her.

Also, seeing as she has not left the shop, there's an argument to be made that she did not actually commit the offence.

MapForJ

blueythebear wrote: »

If it's ignored, then the Data Protection Commissioner will dole out fines etc. I'm saying it's likely that in such a scenario, the supermarket will respond by saying that the data has been destroyed and the Data PRotection Commissioner can generally take no action against them in such a scenario..

if she made the request immediately they would have a job explaining to dpc why it was destroyed

She does not have to be searched by them. She should have said call the police and you can search me. i said that once to a piggish security guard who falsely accused me. he did not call them

ScouseMouse

If she refuses to be searched, then the police could do it. However, the shop would have to accuse her of theft. If she is innocent, the police would then be the witnesses to defamation/slander.

The shop would be in deep trouble then.

littlemac1980

Arguable that being confronted unnecessarily in public and escorted away by security in certain circumstances could ground an action for defamation.

MagicSean

superscouse wrote: »

If she refuses to be searched, then the police could do it. However, the shop would have to accuse her of theft. If she is innocent, the police would then be the witnesses to defamation/slander.

The shop would be in deep trouble then.

The Gardaí have no power to search for stolen items if she does not consent. They would have to arrest her based on the evidence given to them by security. This evidence would not be defamation as it would be covered under the exceptions to defamation.

melekalikimaka

terrible way to be treated, she should bring the issue further

MagicSean

blueythebear wrote: »

Knew this would come up!

They would also have to believe that she would attempt to evade arrest by the Gardaí. Probably would not be a reasonably held belief if she had three kids with her.

Also, seeing as she has not left the shop, there's an argument to be made that she did not actually commit the offence.

True. But having kids would not mean anything. Many shoplifters have kids and often use them too. And once she has an item concealed it would be a strong argument as to her intent.

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The Gardaí have no power to search for stolen items if she does not consent. They would have to arrest her based on the evidence given to them by security. This evidence would not be defamation as it would be covered under the exceptions to defamation.

if she did consent to search by gardai and nothing was found what would be the situation? Is it false imprisonment while waiting for gardai?

blueythebear

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

True. But having kids would not mean anything. Many shoplifters have kids and often use them too. And once she has an item concealed it would be a strong argument as to her intent.

There's arguments on both sides. Concealing the item could fulfill the requirements of S4 Criminal Justice Act 2001 so that perhaps an offence could have been committed but I wouldn't want to have to rely on that if I was accused of false imprisonment! I would have thought that the norm is for store security to allow the alleged thief leave the premises and confront them outside and bring them back into the store?

I still think that with 3 kids with her, it would be very difficult to argue that she would have evaded arrest had the Gardaí shown up. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I've no doubt it does but I still think it'd be difficult to argue the point in court (if the store security were defending a false imprisonment claim).

blueythebear

MapForJ wrote: »

if she did consent to search by gardai and nothing was found what would be the situation

Then that would be evidence of the fact that any accusation by the store was not true and she should see a solicitor about suing in defamation.

TylerIE

usernamegoes wrote: »

I can't recall exactly so I am open to correction, but is it not the case that where an arrestable offence i.e. 5 years or more upon conviction has in fact been committed and a person has reasonable belief it was you that committed the offence they can detain you.

This being distinct from knowing that you committed the offence, but rather knowing an offence was committed and believing it to be you.

In the UK isnt there a general power of arrest for everybody? The only difference there is that a constable can arrest on foot of a warrant, where as Joe Public can only arrest for an offence which they witness or have reasonable grounds to believe has been committed.

jblack

lst wrote: »

In the UK isnt there a general power of arrest for everybody? The only difference there is that a constable can arrest on foot of a warrant, where as Joe Public can only arrest for an offence which they witness or have reasonable grounds to believe has been committed.

Any person may effect an arrest where an arrestable offence is being or has been committed, but only where the person suspects with reasonable cause that the suspect is trying to avoid or would otherwise attempt to avoid arrest by a Garda member.

If someone is arrested in such a way they must be transferred to Garda custody as soon as practicable

source

lst wrote: »

In the UK isnt there a general power of arrest for everybody? The only difference there is that a constable can arrest on foot of a warrant, where as Joe Public can only arrest for an offence which they witness or have reasonable grounds to believe has been committed.

Same applies here Section 4 Criminal Law Act 1997.

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.

It only applies for an arrestable offence. ie an offence that carries a sentence of 5 years or more.

“arrestable offence” means an offence for which a person of full capacity and not previously convicted may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years or by a more severe penalty and includes an attempt to commit any such offence;

A security Guard operates under the same Section (Section 4(1) and (2)) as other citizens. So a security guard can arrest if they see someone committing an offence, or if they know an offence has been committed and they suspect someone of committing an offence. They then must hand the person over to AGS as soon as possible.

TylerIE

jblack wrote: »

Any person may effect an arrest where an arrestable offence is being or has been committed, but only where the person suspects with reasonable cause that the suspect is trying to avoid or would otherwise attempt to avoid arrest by a Garda member.

If someone is arrested in such a way they must be transferred to Garda custody as soon as practicable

source wrote: »

Same applies here Section 4 Criminal Law Act 1997.



It only applies for an arrestable offence. ie an offence that carries a sentence of 5 years or more.



A security Guard operates under the same Section (Section 4(1) and (2)) as other citizens. So a security guard can arrest if they see someone committing an offence, or if they know an offence has been committed and they suspect someone of committing an offence. They then must hand the person over to AGS as soon as possible.

Ye Im aware of the Irish Arrestable Offence. Just was asking re the above blog, if its in the UK she could have been detained by a civilian for what here would be considered a non arrestable offence.

Although in Ireland would the following not apply:

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

Making off without payment.

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.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.

(3) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), 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 offence under this section.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence under this section has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant any person whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(5) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may be effected by a person under subsection (3) only where the person, 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.

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

source

lst wrote: »

Ye Im aware of the Irish Arrestable Offence. Just was asking re the above blog, if its in the UK she could have been detained by a civilian for what here would be considered a non arrestable offence.

Although in Ireland would the following not apply:

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

No Section 8 wouldn't be used here, Section 4(1) Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 deals with theft (shoplifting),

4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it

Section 8 is used in situations like leaving a restaurant without paying, jumping from a cab without paying etc.

jblack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6323391.stm

Zambia

The whole fault here lies with the security staff they should have basically not made a pigs ear of this.

If done properly

1: They should identified themselves and arrested her explaining why then return her to store or holding area.
2: They should have simply told her on return to the store.
"Please remove the stock you have not paid for from your bag and place it on the table"
3: If she did not take out the item leave it there and wait for the police who you would have called by now anyway.
4: On police arrival explain the events and indicate to the stolen stocks location.
5: Police spot the goods or search and recover the goods.
6: Police take away the woman and arrangements are made for any evidence to be supplied to them for prosecution purposes.

On her prosecution everything could be made available to her including footage.

What generally happens when it transpires that the person did not have the item and the store guard made a false arrest. Well everyone in the store just wants the ground to open up and swallow them. Which is what happened here. Or alternatively the ground to open up and swallow the arrested person.

MagicSean

jblack wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6323391.stm

A poor decision on the part of the crown prosecution service

jblack

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

A poor decision on the part of the crown prosecution service

Dangerous waters to navigate though; arguable it was the right decision to bring about a prosecution to discourage people taking the law into their own hands.

The correct decision in the end by the judge. Sends out the right message that in certain circumstances a citizen's arrest is permissible but the arrestor had better have a belt and braces good reason for it and how they did it.

As this thread has repeated it's all about context.

MagicSean

jblack wrote: »

Dangerous waters to navigate though; arguable it was the right decision to bring about a prosecution to discourage people taking the law into their own hands.

The correct decision in the end by the judge. Sends out the right message that in certain circumstances a citizen's arrest is permissible but the arrestor had better have a belt and braces good reason for it and how they did it.

As this thread has repeated it's all about context.

What's the point in having the law when you intend to prosecute those who use it properly?

jblack

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

What's the point in having the law when you intend to prosecute those who use it properly?

Absolutely take your point but by prosecuting it sends a clear message that you cannot take the law into your own hands and if you do it will be highly scrutinized.

Perhaps this message is for the greater good.


It would be very easy for people to misinterpret that particular law.

I do agree that it seems very unfair that the man in the article had to suffer the stress of a prosecution for doing that which he was entitled to legally.

I sound like a fascist

RustyNut

Just out of intrest, say you are walking out of tescos or where ever after purchasing and paying for your bag of widgets and did not steal anything when buba grabs you by the arm and insists on you going back in to the shop. You have to go collect the kids from sports or wherever so you get all indignant, tell him to leave you alone he refuses so you use force ( bop him on the nose ) to defend your self and go about your business.
Legaly where do you stand remembering you are innocent. Or you just ignore him and walk off into the sunset.?

MagicSean

jblack wrote: »

Absolutely take your point but by prosecuting it sends a clear message that you cannot take the law into your own hands and if you do it will be highly scrutinized.

Perhaps this message is for the greater good.


It would be very easy for people to misinterpret that particular law.

I do agree that it seems very unfair that the man in the article had to suffer the stress of a prosecution for doing that which he was entitled to legally.

I sound like a fascist

What message? Don't help the police or do your part to help society? I hope he followed up with a suit for wrongful prosecution. If the CPS prosecuted him knowing he would be exonerated just so they could send a message then someone should be held accountable for that.

RustyNut wrote: »

Just out of intrest, say you are walking out of tescos or where ever after purchasing and paying for your bag of widgets and did not steal anything when buba grabs you by the arm and insists on you going back in to the shop. You have to go collect the kids from sports or wherever so you get all indignant, tell him to leave you alone he refuses so you use force ( bop him on the nose ) to defend your self and go about your business.
Legaly where do you stand remembering you are innocent. Or you just ignore him and walk off into the sunset.?

If you haven't committed a crime he has no right to touch you or demand you do anything and has opened himself to a world of liability, both criminal and civil.

jblack

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

What message? Don't help the police or do your part to help society? I hope he followed up with a suit for wrongful prosecution. If the CPS prosecuted him knowing he would be exonerated just so they could send a message then someone should be held accountable for that.


You are over simplifying a very grey area and the message is clear; where a civilian makes a citizens arrest there is a high threshold of conduct and justification to be met.

This high threshold is for the public interest at large and a means to communicate this is to hold anybody effecting such an arrest, in circumstances where there is a potential illegal act (false imprisonment etc), accountable.

jblack

RustyNut wrote: »

Just out of intrest, say you are walking out of tescos or where ever after purchasing and paying for your bag of widgets and did not steal anything when buba grabs you by the arm and insists on you going back in to the shop. You have to go collect the kids from sports or wherever so you get all indignant, tell him to leave you alone he refuses so you use force ( bop him on the nose ) to defend your self and go about your business.
Legaly where do you stand remembering you are innocent. Or you just ignore him and walk off into the sunset.?

Do not "bop him on the nose" or you will open yourself up to an assault charge.

PCPhoto

RustyNut wrote: »

Just out of intrest, say you are walking out of tescos or where ever after purchasing and paying for your bag of widgets and did not steal anything when buba grabs you by the arm and insists on you going back in to the shop. You have to go collect the kids from sports or wherever so you get all indignant, tell him to leave you alone he refuses so you use force ( bop him on the nose ) to defend your self and go about your business.
Legaly where do you stand remembering you are innocent. Or you just ignore him and walk off into the sunset.?

you have two options -
1.....go back into the store and when you come back out - goto a solicitor and sue for false imprisonment/defamation and possibly assault.

2.....refuse to go back in - keep walking - any physical contact made by security guard is and will be deemed assault - if you are detained against your will ...its false imprisonment.... go to a solicitor and start civil proceedings.

however ...using force "bopping" him you can be counter sued for assault and possibly charged by the gardai. Best to return to shop and make a couple of grand out of it....teach the shop they need to know the law and act within the law before accusing someone of theft.

RustyNut

jblack wrote: »

Do not "bop him on the nose" or you will open yourself up to an assault charge.

Even if he makes you feel threatened or alarmed and he grabs you aggressively? Just wondering.

RustyNut

PCPhoto wrote: »

you have two options -
1.....go back into the store and when you come back out - goto a solicitor and sue for false imprisonment/defamation and possibly assault.

2.....refuse to go back in - keep walking - any physical contact made by security guard is and will be deemed assault - if you are detained against your will ...its false imprisonment.... go to a solicitor and start civil proceedings.

however ...using force "bopping" him you can be counter sued for assault and possibly charged by the gardai. Best to return to shop and make a couple of grand out of it....teach the shop they need to know the law and act within the law before accusing someone of theft.

That answers it so. Thanks

jblack

RustyNut wrote: »

Even if he makes you feel threatened or alarmed and he grabs you aggressively? Just wondering.

This is in realms of what ifs but basically if you hit someone else you can be charged with assault. Don't do it unless maybe you are defending yourself and even then be very careful, in the absence of witnesses or cctv where two people are involved in an assault and both deny responsibility then both can be charged.