what constitutes a defamation of character

Jimmy_M

Hi, quick question...
While leaving a busy late night convenience store with an item i purchased, I was asked by a security guard had i paid for it.
After saying yes, he asked to see my receipt.
I didnt have a receipt becuase i either didnt wait for it or i wasnt given one. (In fact i think i wasnt given one because i got change from the purchase)

Id had a few beers that night, and a few words were exchanged and i left after convincing him i had paid for it.

So i was wondering is it ok for a security guard to ask to see proof of purchase on leaving a premises.... is it an actual defamation or do you have to be accused of something...
I know when i go to the builders providers theres a security guard that looks at your receipt to make sure it matches whats in the vehicle...but everyone gets that treatment and you can be guaranteed you have received a receipt.

Beano

everything you ever wanted to know about defamation http://www.lawyer.ie/defamation

the nub of it is this

An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients:

it must be published,
it must refer to the complainant and
it must be false.

so if it was a conversation just between you and the guard then it fails the first test

goz83

Beano wrote: »

everything you ever wanted to know about defamation http://www.lawyer.ie/defamation

the nub of it is this




so if it was a conversation just between you and the guard then it fails the first test

I wasn't aware that it must be published, but it certainly weakens any claim of defamation were the false statement not to be published.

For clarity, published woukd cover something as simple as an email sent to someone other than the complainant and would also cover the likes of hand written signage viewable by others, other than the complainant.

In your situation OP, the security guard was just doing his job and made no accusations for anyone to see. In general, a defamatory statement must also be seen to have potential negative impact on ones character.

MarkAnthony

It also covers the security guard being overheard, by anyone.

These type of defamation cases happen all the time in retail.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

I know of 3 cases where defamation cases were won on the basis of an accusation which was later found to be untrue was spoken within earshot of other people. 2 of the cases were the same as yours, ie, security guard accused people of not paying in front of other customers. The 3rd case happened in a shop where I used to work. A customer paid with a dud €50 and the girl who served him only realised it as he was walking out the door. She shouted across the shop at him that the money was fake. Even though the money was found to be fake, the man still won his case as he claimed that he was unaware the note was a dud and he said that her shouting it across the shop suggested to the other customers that he was a dodgy character.

Jimmy_M

yep ive seen a few cases (mostly settled out of court) But the nature of the accusation is never clear. Closest ive seen is this http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/woman-who-claims-she-was-wrongly-accused-of-not-paying-for-bucket-and-mop-settles-case-1.2005746

It was definitely overheard. People heard me explaining why i couldnt produce a receipt. But what im wondering is what goz83 has eluded to, is it defamation at all - he didnt explicitly say "you stole it". he asked to see my receipt implying that i had stolen it.

When in fact i had queued for a number of minutes to pay for it and then not been given a receipt - making the conversation at the door lengthier.

goz83

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It also covers the security guard being overheard, by anyone.

These type of defamation cases happen all the time in retail.

Absolutely true. But in the case of the OP, there was no mention of anything that would defame him. There was no accusation, only a request for proof of purchase. Having worked as a security guard, i was made well aware never to accuse, even if sure that a theft was in action. Proof of purchase was was all we had to reauest and if refused and there was no doubt of theft, the person could be detained, pending arrival of the Gardai for searching. I don't know if this has changed in 10 years.

goz83

Jimmy_M wrote: »

yep ive seen a few cases (mostly settled out of court) But the nature of the accusation is never clear. Closest ive seen is this http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/woman-who-claims-she-was-wrongly-accused-of-not-paying-for-bucket-and-mop-settles-case-1.2005746

It was definitely overheard. People heard me explaining why i couldnt produce a receipt. But what im wondering is what goz83 has eluded to, is it defamation at all - he didnt explicitly say "you stole it". he asked to see my receipt implying that i had stolen it.

When in fact i had queued for a number of minutes to pay for it and then not been given a receipt - making the conversation at the door lengthier.

i'm afraid that asking for a receipt is not an implication of theft, but rather a request to prove purchase and to check that there are no errors on said receipt. The staff member might have made an error, or may have even purposely undercharged you, which is not uncommon by mistake,mor design. Feeling implicated is not the same as being implicated. Otherwise, people would claim defamation if a security guard was simply monitoring them. Hope that clears it up.

phater phagan

Unfortunately, hard as it is to believe people sometimes steal things from shops. The security guard was perfectly within his rights to ask for proof of purchase. It may have been a bit embarrassing for the OP, but there was not defamation of character.
In order to take and win a suit of character defamation a person must prove that damage of a substantial nature occurred. It might be loss of good character which consequently hurt their financial or professional standing.

plodder

I presume, you're not under any obligation to "prove" anything when you're walking out the door of a shop. If a security guard tries to stop you from leaving then the stakes are raised, and you're into a possible wrongful arrest situation, as well as defamation, which is why they are taking a big risk unless they know for sure you took something without paying for it. I guess, if you engage with guard voluntarily then that doesn't apply.

Jimmy_M

yep i understand they are there to do a job - and i understand that i wasnt actually accused of anything and i wasn't detained or searched or anything.

But i suppose what i was upset about was the fact that i was singled out to be inspected.

goz83

Jimmy_M wrote: »

yep i understand they are there to do a job - and i understand that i wasnt actually accused of anything and i wasn't detained or searched or anything.

But i suppose what i was upset about was the fact that i was singled out to be inspected.

Could have been random, or you might have looked suspicious. You say you had been drinking, so you might not have noticed others also being asked tomprove their purchases if the security guard had not witnessed the transaction.

Next time, you could run

Arbiter of Good Taste

Jimmy_M wrote: »

i was upset about was the fact that i was singled out to be inspected.

I don't understand. You were so upset you wanted to sue?

Paz-CCFC

phater phagan wrote: »

In order to take and win a suit of character defamation a person must prove that damage of a substantial nature occurred. It might be loss of good character which consequently hurt their financial or professional standing.

You do not have to give proof of this to win a case. Section 6(5) of the 2009 Act. A defamation claim is actionable per se. Though, lack of proof of damages might lead to a nominal award.

Once a plaintiff shows the court that a statement was made, it is up to the the defendant to prove that it was not defamatory.

In saying that, I don't think that merely asking someone for a receipt would constitute defamation. I think that a lot would depend on the surrounding acts. Eg, if a security guard confronted a shopper and accused him of stealing, spoke in a tone which strongly implied in the presence of others that he may have stolen, caused him to believe that he could not leave the shop (false imprisonment), applied force (battery) etc.

tricky D

The security guard needs to satisfy a number of criteria before stopping some one on suspicion of theft. The model is called SCONE: selection, concealment, observation, non-payment and egress. This is standard in the industry according to a security guard I know at a leading department store, who won't do a thing without those boxes having been ticked, even if it is one of the usual suspects. In the instance as described by the OP, it appears that a significant number of those requirements have not been met, so it seems the security person needs 'reminding' of these requirements. While there might be some merit in legal action, personally I wish people would be a bit more thick-skinned instead of seeking some action á la compo culture.

Tom Young

Covered by qualified privilege defence per section 18, unless something inappropriate or egregious occurred.

Doesn't sound like it did.

How close has the above sailed to the charter?

Defamation is a very technical area of law.

MarkAnthony

Tom Young wrote: »

Covered by qualified privilege defence per section 18, unless something inappropriate or egregious occurred.

Doesn't sound like it did.

How close has the above sailed to the charter?

Defamation is a very technical area of law.

I was wondering about QP - but in the case of someone over hearing a defamatory statement would QP still apply in relation to the 'overhearer'.

Tom Young

It does in my view.

Read here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/431.html&query=Olsthoorn&method=boolean