Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

78 year old grandmother wrongly accused of shoplifting

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    It does depend on whether the other party is malicious or not though.

    Why?


  • Options
    #93
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Procrastastudy wrote: »

    Why?

    Why what? Why is defamation a civil offence or why is this possiblg defamation?

    The former because a person's good name is important and protected in law, the latter because accusing someone of being a criminal is potentially ruining that good name.


  • Options
    #94
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    Being accused of being a shoplifter is clearly defamatory. ...
    Not necessarily. It is certainly not defamatory if it is true. If it is false or mistaken, but the accusation is made in private, then there is no damage to a person's good name, so there is no defamation.

    Have a look at the law: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf. Read, in particular, Section 6.

    It happens in life that people do things that annoy us. Sometimes the annoying behaviour can, in the eyes of almost everybody, be wrong, to be reprehensible in some way. We can be upset by other people's bad behaviour. But not every instance of annoying or bad behaviour is actionable in law.


  • Options
    #95
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    Why what? Why is defamation a civil offence or why is this possiblg defamation?

    The former because a person's good name is important and protected in law, the latter because accusing someone of being a criminal is potentially ruining that good name.

    Maybe you responded before my edit which highlights one sentence. It doesn't have to be malicious as far as I know.


  • Options
    #96
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Not necessarily. It is certainly not defamatory if it is true. If it is false or mistaken, but the accusation is made in private, then there is no damage to a person's good name, so there is no defamation.

    Have a look at the law: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf. Read, in particular, Section 6.

    It happens in life that people do things that annoy us. Sometimes the annoying behaviour can, in the eyes of almost everybody, be wrong, to be reprehensible in some way. We can be upset by other people's bad behaviour. But not every instance of annoying or bad behaviour is actionable in law.

    Would you call 2 shop employees following you home and then a gardai car with 2 gardai and 2 shop employees turning up at your home to question you a quiet private chat or a very public statement?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Not necessarily. It is certainly not defamatory if it is true. If it is false or mistaken, but the accusation is made in private, then there is no damage to a person's good name, so there is no defamation.

    Have a look at the law: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf. Read, in particular, Section 6.

    It happens in life that people do things that annoy us. Sometimes the annoying behaviour can, in the eyes of almost everybody, be wrong, to be reprehensible in some way. We can be upset by other people's bad behaviour. But not every instance of annoying or bad behaviour is actionable in law.

    Private means exactly that though there can be absolutely no publication to a third party. In this case there were two shop assistants - unless both saw it there is publication to a third party. Granted it assumption but presumably they told their manager they were going out or at least someone in the shop they were leaving - another third party.

    They reported it to the Gardai - another third party although they *MAY* have a defence to that. If any of the neighbours came out to see what was going on and overheard anything - yet another third party.


  • Options
    #98
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Private means exactly that though there can be absolutely no publication to a third party. In this case there were two shop assistants - unless both saw it there is publication to a third party. Granted it assumption but presumably they told their manager they were going out or at least someone in the shop they were leaving - another third party.

    They reported it to the Gardai - another third party although they *MAY* have a defence to that. If any of the neighbours came out to see what was going on and overheard anything - yet another third party.
    The Act defines a defamatory statement thus:
    “defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a
    person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society
    Given that the whole thing was done and dusted in a few minutes, and the shop employees and Gardaí were satisfied that there was no shoplifting, can anybody argue that her reputation was injured in the eyes of reasonable members of society?

    I don't see an easy win for her if she went to court.


  • Options
    #99
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    The Act defines a defamatory statement thus:

    Given that the whole thing was done and dusted in a few minutes, and the shop employees and Gardaí were satisfied that there was no shoplifting, can anybody argue that her reputation was injured in the eyes of reasonable members of society?

    I don't see an easy win for her if she went to court.

    I think we can all agree it could have been handled substantially better by the shop. Everything else is down to individual opinion in my mind.


  • Options
    #100
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    The Act defines a defamatory statement thus:

    Given that the whole thing was done and dusted in a few minutes, and the shop employees and Gardaí were satisfied that there was no shoplifting, can anybody argue that her reputation was injured in the eyes of reasonable members of society?

    I don't see an easy win for her if she went to court.

    Bear in mind defamation is decided by a jury. Just look at the number of people on here that want to lynch the assistants! Not only that it's very likely that it would be settled long before it got to court.

    While I see what you're saying - people have been successful with less.


  • Options
    #101
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Bear in mind defamation is decided by a jury....
    Fair point. Which brings her age back into play.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,441 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Both Aldi and Lidl provide baskets.

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2160/241664.JPG

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2160/241665.JPG


  • Options
    #103
    BidillyBo
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭BidillyBo


    Got accused of stealing before got the receipt out of the bin and got on with my life.The fact you think you deserve money for it is beyond retarded


  • Options
    #104
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Bear in mind defamation is decided by a jury. Just look at the number of people on here that want to lynch the assistants! Not only that it's very likely that it would be settled long before it got to court.

    While I see what you're saying - people have been successful with less.

    Only if taken in the High Court, very few cases are taken in the High Court with most been taken in the Circuit Court no jury there just a judge.


  • Options
    #105
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Victor wrote: »
    Both Aldi and Lidl provide baskets.

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2160/241664.JPG

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2160/241665.JPG
    Not the branches that I am most familiar with.


  • Options
    #106
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Not the branches that I am most familiar with.

    Ditto on both stores


  • Options
    #107
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Victor wrote: »
    Both Aldi and Lidl provide baskets.

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2160/241664.JPG

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2160/241665.JPG
    Only in a very small number of their city stores


  • Options
    #108
    Ranicand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭Ranicand


    Melendez wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    So would you like to give me your address and I will tell the Guards I think you have bodies buried in your back garden.

    If it tuns out you don't you can thank me for the opportunity to enhance your reputation.:rolleyes:

    You really should smack your head again a wall for posting that.:confused:


  • Options
    #109
    Melendez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Melendez


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #110
    Big Nasty
    Registered Users Posts: 22,080 ✭✭✭✭Big Nasty


    The rules of engagement in relation to shoplifting are as follows:

    You must witness the suspect 1) approach, 2) select, 3) conceal and 4) leave without paying for the item(s).

    If you miss any one of the above four you let them go, even if you are 99% sure they have stolen.

    Example: I see you walking around the store with a pair of jeans in hand. You go up to some other items of clothing and compare then walk out with the jeans in your hand. What should I do?

    The answer is let you go. Why? Because I didn't witness you approach and select the item, conceal it and most importantly NOT pay for it. You could have paid for the item and taken it out of the bag to compare colour with other items, decide against them and leave, jeans in hand.

    It's not worth taking a chance on a cq. €100 item if there is a chance of a €5k - €10k law suit if you are wrong. 'If in doubt, let them out'.

    Now in your case OP they were definitely wrong and you do have a case. The question is will you stoop that low for a shop assistant on minimum wage that made a mistake and didn't cause you any real harm?


  • Options
    #111
    Melendez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Melendez


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Melendez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Melendez


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #113
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Melendez wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    A court would decide if there was no harm. Good name is an enumerated right under the constitution and therefore receives very strong protection. Suing someone is also to vindicate your rights - if a judge feels there is no real harm done he has the option to do that by awarding nominal damages.
    Melendez wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    When reporting something to the guards on can rely on the defence of qualified privilege. The scenario you outline is completely different to what actually happened.


  • Options
    #114
    Melendez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Melendez


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #115
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Melendez wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If you read back through the thread the limbs of defamation have been explained and, at least speculatively, satisfied.

    In short it's very likely that the assistants (two of them) communicated their suspicious to a third party that wasn't the guards - not least possibly to one another.


  • Options
    #116
    Melendez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Melendez


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #117
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Melendez wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    With respect you made up your own story and I just showed you how your story was irrelevant to the situation. It's very unlikely that the information wasn't published to a third party. The defence of QP is not always successful. I'm not going to dig up a load of legal authorities for you - have a read of bailii


  • Options
    #118
    noodler
    Registered Users Posts: 26,413 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    So, are you not allowed ask someone to prove if they purchased something?


  • Options
    #119
    Melendez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Melendez


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #120
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Melendez wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    They have published the information to

    a) The guards - but a defence is probably available
    b) each other

    That's from the OP

    In you scenario it was only published to the guards.

    In the OP the woman is in her own house accused of a crime. In your scenario there are unidentified people on a licence to be in a premises.

    In the OP there are public policy considerations in favour of allowing recovery, in your scenario there are public policy considerations barring it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    noodler wrote: »
    So, are you not allowed ask someone to prove if they purchased something?

    "OMG you thief prove you purchased that!" said loudly in the middle of a shopping centre, No.

    "Excuse me sir could I possibly see the receipt for that item" said out of ear shot of others, yes.

    Defamation cases have been taken for the beepers going off. (I don't know how far it got)

    Smyth's toys are party to a High Court defamation case (e.g over €50,000 damages claimed) at the moment over a plastic duck.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement