minor wrongfully accused shoplifting? any thoughts?

SAM75

Hi ,

iam just looking for your opinions on a situation that happened yesderday in a well known convenience store in Dublin .

my 15 year old son and four of his friends had went to the city centre to do some sales shopping , and went into the shop in question to get a drink , and upon entering the manager approached my son and his friends and swiped the purchase's from my sons hand and told them they were to get the f&*% out of the shop that they were caught shoplifting in the shop a week before Christmas ? ,, which was impossible as he was in London up till Christmas eve and either way wouldn't ever even think about stealing anything form anyone!!

then the manager went on to grasp my sons arm and usher him from the shop as lots of people looked on .

my son was shocked and upset by this and came straight home and told us what had happened , I rang the shop and spoke to another manager on duty who told me to ring this morning to speak with the manager in question who was very rude who denied accusing my son and also of grabbing him and putting him out of this shop ?

I this this was unjustified and was not handled correctly from a "manager"

any thoughts?

cheers sam

finnharpsboy

id go straight into the shop today with my son and ask to speak to the manager concerned. then id ask to see the cctv

chops018

finnharpsboy wrote: »

id go straight into the shop today with my son and ask to speak to the manager concerned. then id ask to see the cctv

That usually means involving the Guards. Do you want them involved? But yes, go into the manager and really express your frustration, and do it in front of everyone. If he did indeed handle the situation like you said then he needs to be embarrassed like your son was.

RainyDay

Make a request to the shop for CCTV footage of the recent incident under the Data Protection Act.

NoQuarter

SAM75 wrote: »

which was impossible as he was in London up till Christmas eve

Legally good point.

and either way wouldn't ever even think about stealing anything form anyone!!

Legally useless point.

then the manager went on to grasp my sons arm and usher him from the shop as lots of people looked on .

Potentially legally good point.

told them they were to get the f&*% out of the shop that they were caught shoplifting in the shop a week before Christmas

Potentially legal good point if anyone heard that.

any thoughts?

You can go to the guards and tell them, probably to no end. You can go to a solicitor and insist they bring a claim, on your account I can see at least 2 basis for a claim.

MagicSean

And you know for a fact your son has never stolen and his friends haven't either? You'd be surprised how many parents of shoplifters believe this fact.

finnharpsboy

even if the ops son had shoplifted before in his life, he was wrongly accused as soon as he set foot in the door and he wasnt even in the country when the manager is accusing him of committing said theft

SAM75

MagicSean wrote: »

And you know for a fact your son has never stolen and his friends haven't either? You'd be surprised how many parents of shoplifters believe this fact.

Hi Magicsean , thanks for your msg , and your right you would be amazed at what goes on behind parents backs , but I can say 100% he has NEVER EVER shoplifted before . 2 of the kids with him are his cousins and one is a neighbour so I know all children involved and none are into anything like that

SAM75

update !! I have just received a phone call back from the manager in question , he is now saying he has reviewed the cctv footage and it seems he made a mistake it was not the same boys , that he did not grab my son but pushed him out of the shop! still no sign of an apoligie

finnharpsboy

id request a copy of the cctv to see if you could take things further..... of course the shop has the right to refuse entry but not to physically assault your son in order to remove him

Kenny Logins

SAM75 wrote: »

update !! I have just received a phone call back from the manager in question , he is now saying he has reviewed the cctv footage and it seems he made a mistake it was not the same boys , that he did not grab my son but pushed him out of the shop! still no sign of an apoligie

The CCTV will back up his story so...

Adviceseeking

SAM75 wrote: »

update !! I have just received a phone call back from the manager in question , he is now saying he has reviewed the cctv footage and it seems he made a mistake it was not the same boys , that he did not grab my son but pushed him out of the shop! still no sign of an apoligie

I would be tempted to lodge a claim in a case like this. It is an atrocious situation to have all those people looking on and believing your son who is completely innocent to be a shoplifter. Reputational damage etc. I wouldn't even be inclined to accept an apology though obviously pursuing this would be a lot of hassle which most people do not want.

poisonated

RainyDay wrote: »

Make a request to the shop for CCTV footage of the recent incident under the Data Protection Act.

I don't study law but I would have thought that the data protection act would actually be something that would prevent him seeing the CCTV. After all, there are other people in the shop that would have been recorded.

RainyDay

poisonated wrote: »

I don't study law but I would have thought that the data protection act would actually be something that would prevent him seeing the CCTV. After all, there are other people in the shop that would have been recorded.

Check out the stuff on the dataprivacy.ie on CCTV.

McCrack

poisonated wrote: »

I don't study law but I would have thought that the data protection act would actually be something that would prevent him seeing the CCTV. After all, there are other people in the shop that would have been recorded.

This is correct. However the shop cannot deny the release of the CCTV on this basis. They may try to say so but the way around it is for the shop to black out the other persons in the CCTV so they are not identifiable. I had experience of this recently on behalf of a client and after some argument and having to involve the DPC's office the retailer backed down and released the footage in printed stills and they just black markered out the other people captured. That's perfectly fine.

OP best thing really is contact a solicitor for advice or forget about it completely. Getting the CCTV will be a matter for your solicitor to do but I would point out to act quickly because a lot of retailers override their CCTV after 30 days. Not having the CCTV will not be fatal to any claim you may take on your sons behalf but it would be preferable to have it than not.

SAM75

Thanks guys for all your views , I am going to seek advice from my solicitor , cheers samantha

MagicSean

Solicitor would be best if you plan a civil action. Highly unlikely the manager will freely give out cctv, unless he's an idiot.

Hopefully your $on recovers fully from this ordeal.

RainyDay

SAM75 wrote: »

Thanks guys for all your views , I am going to seek advice from my solicitor , cheers samantha

Honestly, is it really worth it? Are you prepared to spend hundreds or thousands of euro with a solicitor to get an apology form some jumped-up shop manager?

Technically, it is the right thing to do. But common sense would suggest you move on.

Procrastastudy

I'd let the solicitor advise... seen this from the otherside. Appology wasn't the only thing the given.

I fully understand the plight of shopkeeps, having been one myself, but you don't go around acting like this.

Condatis

There are good grounds for an Action for Defamation.

ResearchWill

RainyDay wrote: »

Honestly, is it really worth it? Are you prepared to spend hundreds or thousands of euro with a solicitor to get an apology form some jumped-up shop manager?

Technically, it is the right thing to do. But common sense would suggest you move on.

On similar facts I have seen court awards between 2500 and 10000 plus costs. Many solicitors will do this case no foul no fee.

Predalien

These might be worth reading

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfqlaumhmhql/rss2/

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/girls-win-21000-for-false-shoplifting-claim-2923018.html

http://www.injury-compensation.ie/news/schoolgirls-15-000-euros-award-approved-after-false-shoplifter-claim/

aN.Droid

When I was in school many moons ago the same thing happened a friend of mine.

He was accused of shoplifting in the local garage and forced out of the shop in front of customers that he would of known personally.

He then went on to get counsel and sued the garage. He would never say how much get got but out of it he did get a brand new car (back about 6-7 years ago now)

From what I remember it was pretty much open and shut.

Marcusm

ResearchWill wrote: »

On similar facts I have seen court awards between 2500 and 10000 plus costs. Many solicitors will do this case no foul no fee.

The "foul"'s already happened; the outcome of the case might produce a foal!

Shelflife

What I would do is go down and talk to the manager in question and get his side of the story. Then when you have the full facts you can decide what to do.

A few years ago a mother stormed up to my shop and said that I had accused her son of damaging my property and that I had hit him.

The truth of the matter was that I had asked her son if he saw who let off the fire extinguisher and when he verbally abused me I directed him gently off my property by placing my hand on his shoulder .

All backed up by video footage and witnesses.

There are two sides to every story , I would suggest you get the other side before running to solicitors.

RainyDay

ResearchWill wrote: »

On similar facts I have seen court awards between 2500 and 10000 plus costs. Many solicitors will do this case no foul no fee.

They might, but the person taking the case could still be held liable for the other side's legal costs if they lose the case. Is that a risk you'd really want to take on?

Predalien wrote: »

These might be worth reading

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfqlaumhmhql/rss2/

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/girls-win-21000-for-false-shoplifting-claim-2923018.html

http://www.injury-compensation.ie/news/schoolgirls-15-000-euros-award-approved-after-false-shoplifter-claim/

THis case is quite different to the three cases mentioned, in that the person wasn't detained - they were just thrown out of the shop. I'd really hope that the Courts would take a common sense view of this situation. Has significant harm been done to the boy's reputation?

ResearchWill

RainyDay wrote: »

They might, but the person taking the case could still be held liable for the other side's legal costs if they lose the case. Is that a risk you'd really want to take on?



THis case is quite different to the three cases mentioned, in that the person wasn't detained - they were just thrown out of the shop. I'd really hope that the Courts would take a common sense view of this situation. Has significant harm been done to the boy's reputation?

That is advice a solicitor can give, knowing the local Circuit Court Judges etc., many people take on the risk, it's the same with any legal action. As I said the awards for pure defamation in these type situations are 2,500 to 10,000.

RainyDay

ResearchWill wrote: »

As I said the awards for pure defamation in these type situations are 2,500 to 10,000.

Just to be clear, when you say ' these type situations', are you sure that you're comparing like with like. Are the awards that you're talking about for cases where somebody got thrown out of a shop with a mention of past shop-lifting?

Procrastastudy

RainyDay wrote: »

Just to be clear, when you say ' these type situations', are you sure that you're comparing like with like. Are the awards that you're talking about for cases where somebody got thrown out of a shop with a mention of past shop-lifting?

I've seen €5000 awarded (x2) against a business I used to work for, when a security guard pursued two teenage girls down the street in Limerick after he thought they had lifted something.

ResearchWill

RainyDay wrote: »

Just to be clear, when you say ' these type situations', are you sure that you're comparing like with like. Are the awards that you're talking about for cases where somebody got thrown out of a shop with a mention of past shop-lifting?

Yes, I am talking about buzzer going off in alarm situation, I am talking about we are not going to serve you because you caused trouble before situation, I'm talking about hey you you robbed something situation. Not talking about trespass to the person or false imprisonment just plain old ordinary defamation in a shop. Why its always best if in retail to make sure your insurance covers it.

BTW only ever lost one defamation case I ran, and no award was made in relation to costs. Just to be clear.

Pat Mustard

Looking at ResearchWill's given range of damages, this could create a tricky jurisdictional situation with regard to costs. If you bring proceedings in the Circuit Court with a jurisdiction of €6,348.69 to €38,092.14, and if you get an award of €4k, the general rule is that costs will be awarded against you. Given that risk, it can be safer to issue in the District Court, depending on the circumstances, but in that event, damages will be capped at €6,348.69, being the max jurisdiction of the District Court. This could create a tricky situation, and full careful consideration of all circumstances must be given.

Also, even though there are many solicitors who would take these cases on a no foal no fee basis, there are quite a few solicitors and counsel who like to ensure that their costs will be secured in advance in relation to these types of cases.

You get plaintiffs who are hell bent on pursuing weak cases when they believe that it will not cost them anything. Obviously, there is the risk of costs against the plaintiff, but then again, if there is a next friend who is the mother of an aggrieved child plaintiff, which mother only has a modest income from social welfare, then the risk of having to pay costs may not be the deterrent that one might think.

These types of shop slander cases are usually not as straighforward as your average RTA rear ending.

RainyDay

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I've seen €5000 awarded (x2) against a business I used to work for, when a security guard pursued two teenage girls down the street in Limerick after he thought they had lifted something.

That's quite different to this situation.

ResearchWill wrote: »

I am talking about we are not going to serve you because you caused trouble before situation,

Would you like to quote some references for the cases that involved this kind of situation - the cases would be in the public domain, right?

Procrastastudy

RainyDay wrote: »

That's quite different to this situation.

It is. No one ever accused the girls of stealing. These lads were.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

Looking at ResearchWill's given range of damages, this could create a tricky jurisdictional situation with regard to costs. If you bring proceedings in the Circuit Court with a jurisdiction of €6,348.69 to €38,092.14, and if you get an award of €4k, the general rule is that costs will be awarded against you. Given that risk, it can be safer to issue in the District Court, depending on the circumstances, but in that event, damages will be capped at €6,348.69, being the max jurisdiction of the District Court. This could create a tricky situation, and full careful consideration of all circumstances must be given.

Also, even though there are many solicitors who would take these cases on a no foal no fee basis, there are quite a few solicitors and counsel who like to ensure that their costs will be secured in advance in relation to these types of cases.

You get plaintiffs who are hell bent on pursuing weak cases when they believe that it will not cost them anything. Obviously, there is the risk of costs against the plaintiff, but then again, if there is a next friend who is the mother of an aggrieved child plaintiff, which mother only has a modest income from social welfare, then the risk of having to pay costs may not be the deterrent that one might think.

These types of shop slander cases are usually not as straighforward as your average RTA rear ending.

Section 41 Defamation Act 2009, is important in relation to Jurisdiction. You can only brin Defamation Action in the High Court or in The Circuit Court where that court then will have jurisdiction upto €50,000, you can not bring such an Action in the District Court, if you are awarded €3,000 in the Circuot Court you are entitled to Circuit Court costs.

ResearchWill

RainyDay wrote: »

That's quite different to this situation.


Would you like to quote some references for the cases that involved this kind of situation - the cases would be in the public domain, right?

As all the cases are in the Circuit Court there would be no written or reported decision, Defamation in the High Court which would produce reported judgements are for cases valued at more than €50,000. But I can assure you of the veracity of the cases as I was involved in them.

Some of the cases settled some ran to hearing.

RainyDay

Procrastastudy wrote: »

It is. No one ever accused the girls of stealing. These lads were.

Actually, they weren't accused of stealing, and that kind of sloppy assumption is exactly what will get somebody in big trouble if they were to proceed with a case. The lads were removed from the shop, on the basis that the shop owner believed they had shoplifted on a previous occasion. That is quite different from a direct accusation of shoplifting that occurred in the three reported cases.

ResearchWill wrote: »

As all the cases are in the Circuit Court there would be no written or reported decision, Defamation in the High Court which would produce reported judgements are for cases valued at more than €50,000. But I can assure you of the veracity of the cases as I was involved in them.

Some of the cases settled some ran to hearing.

What a pity there is no public report of the relevant cases, particularly given that these cases were held in the public domain, and many such Circuit Court cases would be widely reported in the press. In all fairness, it would be fairly foolish for someone to make a decision to proceed with a legal case that could expose them to significant costs based on an unsubstantiated report from an anonymous poster.

Pat Mustard

ResearchWill wrote: »

Section 41 Defamation Act 2009, is important in relation to Jurisdiction. You can only brin Defamation Action in the High Court or in The Circuit Court where that court then will have jurisdiction upto €50,000, you can not bring such an Action in the District Court, if you are awarded €3,000 in the Circuot Court you are entitled to Circuit Court costs.

Very good. I don't know what I was talking about - defamation in the District Court.

ResearchWill

RainyDay wrote: »

Actually, they weren't accused of stealing, and that kind of sloppy assumption is exactly what will get somebody in big trouble if they were to proceed with a case. The lads were removed from the shop, on the basis that the shop owner believed they had shoplifted on a previous occasion. That is quite different from a direct accusation of shoplifting that occurred in the three reported cases.



What a pity there is no public report of the relevant cases, particularly given that these cases were held in the public domain, and many such Circuit Court cases would be widely reported in the press. In all fairness, it would be fairly foolish for someone to make a decision to proceed with a legal case that could expose them to significant costs based on an unsubstantiated report from an anonymous poster.

There have been cases where nothing has been said that succeeded in defamation. A defamation can be implied. In fact case have been brought where would you believe it the store alarm went off (I personally think that is a bit much but depends on the situation)

But so as we are clear here s the OP

"my 15 year old son and four of his friends had went to the city centre to do some sales shopping , and went into the shop in question to get a drink , and upon entering the manager approached my son and his friends and swiped the purchase's from my sons hand and told them they were to get the f&*% out of the shop that they were caught shoplifting in the shop a week before Christmas ? ,, which was impossible as he was in London up till Christmas eve and either way wouldn't ever even think about stealing anything form anyone!!"

In relation to what the circuit court will do I refer to an earlier post of mine,

"That is advice a solicitor can give, knowing the local Circuit Court Judges etc., many people take on the risk, it's the same with any legal action. As I said the awards for pure defamation in these type situations are 2,500 to 10,000."

No one should take any legal action with out first getting real legal advice, btw I have not said the OP should take legal action, that is for the OP and his legal advisor.

Procrastastudy

RainyDay wrote: »

Actually, they weren't accused of stealing, and that kind of sloppy assumption is exactly what will get somebody in big trouble if they were to proceed with a case. The lads were removed from the shop, on the basis that the shop owner believed they had shoplifted on a previous occasion. That is quite different from a direct accusation of shoplifting that occurred in the three reported cases.

SAM75 wrote: »

upon entering the manager approached my son and his friends and swiped the purchase's from my sons hand and told them they were to get the f&*% out of the shop that they were caught shoplifting in the shop a week before Christmas

I'm confused - please point out my sloppy.

RainyDay

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm confused - please point out my sloppy.

They weren't accused of stealing. He didn't detain them in the shop and call the Gardai. He threw them out of the shop. It's a different league to the other cases reported on this thread.

Procrastastudy

RainyDay wrote: »

They weren't accused of stealing. He didn't detain them in the shop and call the Gardai. He threw them out of the shop. It's a different league to the other cases reported on this thread.

It really isn't. A fact that has been pointed out to you by people far more knowledgeable than myself. If he had thrown them out of the shop by saying 'Get out' then that's one thing. If you read the OP you'll see he accused them of stealing as a justification for doing so.