RLP - 17 year old girl given £137.50 notice

[Miss Moneyclever]

Hi,

I have a big shock tonight, my daughter (17) admitted being fined for shoplifting. She says she placed an item in her bag and went to pay for some but got caught by the security guard (she never actually left the shop).

 

She was taken in a back room with another member of staff, detials taken etc, she gave the item back and I've just found out she was fined £137.50 and has set up a payment scheme.

 

Is this acceptable? I'm not condoning what she's done, I am livid, disappointed and very upset with her but just not sure if the situation has been dealt with in the correct way.

 

Any advice would be great.

 

Thanks.

[Conniff]

Find by who, has she been to court?

[Miss Moneyclever]

HI Conniff,

No she's not been to court, she said the security guard was gentle but explained he could'nt let it go obviously. I read her letter yesterday from retial prevention?, looks as though she's been fined already by the company and not paid so now this is a debt collection. Why do they think us parents are so blind we'll never find out, I suspect she's created a bigger penalty for not paying up in the first place, I can't believe she's done it, all for a packet of makeup wipes for college!

[revolting peasant]

That's not a fine, it's extortion.

 

If I'm wrong about this I'm sure someone will correct me but as far as I am aware, private security firms do not have the power to impose fines. This strikes me as a case of "pay us to not call the police".

 

If your daughter has no previous history with the police it is likely that they would hahave dealt with this by way of caution or a fixed penalty of £80.

 

There is also the issue that she didn't leave the shop. In a criminal court they would struggle to prove any offence but might JUST get away with a charge of intent to commit the offence but even that is unlikely.

 

Can you tell us who the security firm are and which store they were operating in?

[crash3903]

I would agree with this

 

There is also the issue that she didn't leave the shop. In a criminal court they would struggle to prove any offence but might JUST get away with a charge of intent to commit the offence but even that is unlikely.

 

Not strictly true. The offence is complete as she has concealed the item. leaving the store is purely for the practicalities of a prosecution. The mens rea and actus reas are present therefore the offence is complete

[Conniff]

It is quite amusing how kids don't realise that we used to be that age at one time.

 

You have a couple of choices. If she is at college, are you financing her or does she have her own money. If she has her own money, then at 17 this could be a nice early lesson in right and wrong and you get her to pay, but it must be her own money or it will be pointless.

 

You can write and ask for a breakdown of how they arrived at that amount, and challenge it. It will be a long road though as other threads have shown, they don't give up easily.

[revolting peasant]

You have a couple of choices. If she is at college, are you financing her or does she have her own money. If she has her own money, then at 17 this could be a nice early lesson in right and wrong and you get her to pay, but it must be her own money or it will be pointless.

 

I agree with that Conniff. My parents never bailed me out when I was in trouble (metaphorically speaking of course. I was never in trouble with the Police) but the question of whether the fine is lawful or not still stands.

 

Taking on board Crash3903's comments, the intent probably was there but I still think it unlikely that this could be proven in court. It could be that the OPs daughter absent mindedly put the wipes in her bag without thinking about what she was doing. It would be interesting to see any CCTV footage of the "offence" as her manner in "concealing" the goods would perhaps demonstrate her intentions. Most shoplifters have a good look around them to make sure they aren't being watched before they nick stuff.

 

Question again for the OP. Has your daughter admitted that she intended to steal the item?

[Bookworm]

Not strictly true. The offence is complete as she has concealed the item. leaving the store is purely for the practicalities of a prosecution. The mens rea and actus reas are present therefore the offence is complete

 

The actus reus may be, but until she had left the store, and even then not necessarily, I doubt the mens rea could be proven so easily unless they was video evidence of girl looking guiltily around, shiftily slipping item in her bag and legging it down the street. I exaggerate, but you get my drift.

 

WE know, because OP has told us, that she did intend to steal, but short of a confession or above-mentioned evidence, I'd say the mens rea is far from obvious, unless of course, the security guard saw her behaving in all the described suspicious manners and what not.

 

Leaving the above aside for one moment, I think we are back to an issue that has been discussed before though, ie does this private company have the right to fine someone without having gone to court and/or obtained a conviction? Answers on a postcard, please.

 

These people have made themselves prosecution, judge, jury and executioner, and I think there is a risk that this will become such accepted practice that our rights will become more and more eroded through acceptance than they already are. As far as I am concerned, whether the girl was in the right or in the wrong, 2 wrongs don't do a right, and their wrong is far worse in that it masquerades as a right.

[Spiceskull]

If I'm wrong about this I'm sure someone will correct me but as far as I am aware, private security firms do not have the power to impose fines. This strikes me as a case of "pay us to not call the police".

Only courts and authorsied bodies can impose fines/penalties, and shops are not one of them. You are right - it would be hard to prove that this was intentionally blackmailing in principle, but you could ask them to prove that it was not a case of "pay up or we will call the police."

 

As it stands an alleged crime has been committed, and therefore they are guilty of not reporting it. As such your daughter can be deemed to have gotten away with it, thus escaping the proper legal penalties, and therefore the store are guilty of aiding and abetting her in this.

 

As the crime was not reported, and therefore she was not prosecuted, then surely the crime is not legally recognised as having taken place. As such what are they basing their decisions on when imposing the fine for a crime that has yet to be proven? Are they not, in fact, conspiring to conceal a crime?

 

Either way they are in the wrong, and it might pay to challenge the fine in court...I know this all sounds convoluted, but somewhere in among all this the store is guilty of a bigger crime than your daughter...

[crash3903]

WE know, because OP has told us, that she did intend to steal, but short of a confession or above-mentioned evidence, I'd say the mens rea is far from obvious, unless of course, the security guard saw her behaving in all the described suspicious manners and what not

 

Based on this then the men rea is present - Even without this supporting comment it is there as she has concealed the item to avoid capture and the guard has seen her do that so his evidence would be sufficient if it were to be accepted

 

I do agree though that this is highly unusual and it should be explored further as to what has gone on. Can the OP confirm either way of the Police were called?

[PI Guy]

She stole, she got caught. the SO would not have detained her unless he had the evidence to do so. In any case as crash says the theft was complete as soon as she concealed. Lesson learnt I think

[Bookworm]

That may be so, but it's irrelevant as far as this thread goes, I'm afraid.

[Spiceskull]

PI Guy lives in Croydon...does Bookie know about this?

[revolting peasant]

She stole, she got caught. the SO would not have detained her unless he had the evidence to do so. In any case as crash says the theft was complete as soon as she concealed. Lesson learnt I think

 

Lesson learnt? Well I hope so for her sake but for a private security firm to extort money from her unlawfully is a very strange way of teaching it.

[PI Guy]

PI Guy lives in Croydon...does Bookie know about this?

Who's Bookie and why would he or she be interested?

[Spiceskull]

Who's Bookie and why would he or she be interested?

LOL - she is going to give you such a slap..."Aaaah'm Bookie...it's maaah moooney...don't you know who aaah am?"

[PI Guy]

LOL - she is going to give you such a slap..."Aaaah'm Bookie...it's maaah moooney...don't you know who aaah am?"

still not with you. Why???

[tr03bor]

I think this is completly unreasonable, how will this teach a child a lesson?

 

They get away with it and they parents pay.

[qbal]

At the end of the day, whether she deliberately stole something or not, this action of fining her by the store/security company amounts to extortion (blackmail), which is a criminal offense under section 21 of the theft act 1968.

 

21 Blackmail

(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

 

Teaching her a lesson is not on the cards here. I'd suggest going to the shop and talking to them letting them know thatwhat they are doing is illegal and you will be obliged to take it to the police. That should be enough to get them to drop everything. If it's not, go to the police. Blackmail is a much more serious crime than shoplifting, and even if she does get reported for it, she is most likely to just get a caution.

[demon_x_slash]

tr03bor - it is up to the parents to punish the child for her actions. Retail Loss Prevention are not the police, nor are they judges - the point is that they have no legal authority to dish out fines. There have been many threads about them and their bullish attitude to the law; they make interesting reading if only for the legal points on the power of citizens' arrest.

[meagain]

If they caught her before leaving the store, then security should have treated it as a case of lesson learned or called the police. Forget the banks, this one is a flagrant breach of the Bill of Rights.

 

[...]all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;[...]

[emsgeorge]

I thought that RLP issued 'demands' on behalf of shops - not a fine but simply :

 

We are going to privately prosecute you for the time and costs we have incurred because you shoplifted / defrauded us money / drove off without paying for fuel etc - here is an offer of an out of court settlement, pay it if you want, otherwise see you in court.

[meagain]

They couldn't do this, since as I understand it the fine from a private prosecution still goes to the court rather than the prosecutor. In any case, if they weren't dealing with a serial offender, the police would likely turn up, give a stern telling off and take an offer of payment if goods were actually taken.

 

If you are ever approached by a security company saying they'll drop the charges in return for payment, ask them to put it in writing and report it to the police as a blackmail attempt.

[Consumer9999]

If your daughter has paid any money to "RLP", she is technically admitting liability for the offence.

[raydetinu]

As she is under 18 she cannot be sued or taken to court for damages, which is what the Civil recovery is.