Do Gardai always need statements before taking action?

Song to the Siren

The first time I dealt with the police when working as a store security guard, the guard in question who called by, later rang me to say he'd called to the house of the person who'd stolen. Once I'd shown him the footage of her stealing the items, that was enough for him to drive by her house. Everything was efficient.

However, the last time a theft occurred in our store, things were different. The thief in question had stolen three items, but I could only be 100% sure that two of these were taken. Because I didn't have the footage of her bagging pocketing the item that I mentioned, they told me that I'd need to find that extra footage and that they'd come back to take a statement from me. The next day that they were on, that I was also working, was a week later.

It took me quite a bit of time to go through the other cameras to see if that person stole the third item, and I still couldn't be sure. Six days later a different guard came by to take the footage (his remit) and two days after that again, the original guards came by to take my statement. I didn't realise it, but at that stage it was only really as a favour to the guards to give the time to take a statement, as the stolen items would never be recovered. I reckon if it was the other guard I mentioned, he would've just taken the view "she's been stealing so I've the right to assume she took everything".

Next time if I be sure to only inform the guards of the items that I'm sure are stole, and if I have the footage ready and saved, would that be enough for them to go after the culprits there and then? And maybe if have the incident report written up at the time the guards come by, might that enable me to get the statement part out of the way there and then? On another occasion, there was a thief that I called the guards about, and three months later I got a call about making a statement when the dude was in prison. There was certainly no waiting around for a statement before putting him in prison!

What's your experience in this?

BaronVon

If somebody is caught committing a crime red handed, there is far less investigation that needs to take place before bringing the incident to court, whereas if you are making accusations without definitive proof, there will need to be far more work on the investigation side, and a guard will want to have his ducks in a row before he arrests someone.

While you mightn't get your property back after some time has elapsed, the person can still be brought to court.

Song to the Siren

BaronVon wrote: »

If somebody is caught committing a crime red handed, there is far less investigation that needs to take place before bringing the incident to court, whereas if you are making accusations without definitive proof, there will need to be far more work on the investigation side, and a guard will want to have his ducks in a row before he arrests someone.

So do you reckon if I hadn't mentioned the third stolen item to the guards that they'd have taken action quicker?

BaronVon

It's really down to the individual guard. Guards are afforded an enormous amount of discretion in how they conduct investigations, and whether they prosecute or not. Why did you want such immediate action? Is it not better to have things done right rather than rushed?

Song to the Siren

BaronVon wrote: »

It's really down to the individual guard. Guards are afforded an enormous amount of discretion in how they conduct investigations, and whether they prosecute or not. Why did you want such immediate action? Is it not better to have things done right rather than rushed?

Because otherwise the property is long gone. That's all the store manager cares about.

BaronVon

Once the person leaves the shop, the property is most likely gone regardless. A judge can order restitution by means of a fine, if convicted in court, and if the fine is enforceable.