Ashamed, embarrased - Tesco Theft

[old bill]

Hi Lucy,

 

Unless the bottles of wine were from one of the more expensive vineyards, Tesco are doing their usual and making a mountain out of a molehill. From what you've said in your posts, it seems to me the police are likely to take the same view. It costs around £2,000 per case to prosecute a person at a Magistrates Court or its equivalent in Scotland and the CPS/PF are not going to go to that expense for the sake of a few bottles of cheap plonk, probably costing no more than about £12.00 in total. In my experience, I think it more likely that the police will be told to administer a caution, which is verbal and a written record is kept of it.

[old bill]

Hello Lucy,

Sorry to hear of this difficult time you are going through.

 

I have had a Police caution for shoplifting. It must be ~13 years ago, and I do not know what has changed, procedurally, in that time.

 

What I do recall is that I was cautioned AT THE POLICE STATION at the time of the offence and it was made clear to me no further action would be taken.

[i don't even think the loathsome RLP existed at this point].

 

So sadly, and wrongly, for a first conviction of goods less than £40 it seems likely it will proceed to court.

 

Firstly I AM NO EXPERT. With a low income you SHOULD be entitled to Legal Aid.

You will have been offered a solicitor at the Police Station, did you take advice from him/her?

If so they would have given you the name and phone no. of the company they represesent.

ASK THEM to advise you further.

 

If you did not get advice from a solicitor from at the Station, firstly, establish your eligibility for Legal Aid,

secondly, GET A SOLICITOR.

They will be better able to offer immediate advice and, obviously, follow the case through to Magistrates Court, should it proceed that far.

 

If it is a genuine first offence, a conditional discharge seems the most likely outcome, yes you will have a criminal record after this.

 

Depending on your type of work, eg: Nurse, it will always show on your CRB.

Sorry if this sounds so gloomy.

 

To my non-legal mind, if they're going to caution at £35, just when in the hell aren't they?

 

Best of luck.

 

I hope a solicitor was provided at the police station because it is a legal requirement, under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as amended), for the police to offer you the services of one, at your own or public expense. If that wasn't done, this case ain't going anywhere.

[old bill]

Thanks Old Bill! The bottles of wine were about £10 each .... and I received the dreaded RLP letter today. I am going to take the advice on this board and totally ignore it. I don't even want to reply back saying I deny liability as I am not sure if Tesco's would've sent on CCTV footage? So I hope I am doing the right thing by just ignoring. I now understand why people who receive these letters get scared into paying, they do look mighty official!

 

The premises RLP use as justification for their claims fail to take account of and, indeed, appear to ignore the ruling in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd -v- New Garage & Motor Co Ltd 1915. This particular piece of case law has stood firm and formed a cornerstone of English Civil Litigation Law for the last 97 years. Its basic thrust is that if you make a claim against another, you must prove that you have suffered actual and quantifiable loss and that the person you allege caused the loss did, in fact, cause the alleged loss. However, in claiming, any damages you seek can only put you in the same position you were in before the alleged loss was suffered or occurred. You are not allowed to be better-off financially. In a court case in Oxford, earlier this year, it was found that the claimant, a retailer, had inflated the sums claimed and would have been better-off financially. It was also found that the case law RLP were quoting did not stand up and the judge, a senior Circuit Judge, dismissed the claim and refused the retailer leave to appeal. From what I have seen of some of the case law RLP quote in order to try and justify their claims, which do not justify the claims being made, it is going to be interesting to see if civil recovery survives as the public tide of anger and outrage is turning on the civil recovery industry.

[old bill]

I can't actually recall if I was offered one as there were about 5 police officers in the room taking down all manner of details and I was being asked so many questions with them then talking amongst themselves about things. it was all a bit confusing to be honest Old Bill. Thanks for your reply!

 

It's very important that you remember if the police offered you the services of a solicitor or actually obtained a solicitor for you. Failure on their part to comply with this legal requirement can impact on the entire case. Believe me, it can.

[old bill]

Lucy and flowerbomb, hope all works out well for you both.

Does anyone know if it's only at the Police Station you are entitled to a Solicitor or does the same apply when the Police are called to the store?

 

The Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as amended) requires that anyone taken into police custody who is accused of committing an offence is entitled, by law, to the services of a solicitor, at their own or public expense. When police are called to retail premises in cases of alleged shoplifting, the officers dealing will assess the case. This requires them to listen to both sides, view any CCTV footage and use something known as the Ghosh Test. This is the two-part test for dishonesty prescribed by the Court of Appeal in the case of R -v- Ghosh 1982. If only one or neither of the two parts of the test are satisfied, there is no offence. It is becoming evident that retailers are trying their luck with civil recovery when there is clearly no offence or grounds in law for attempting to bring a civil claim.

[old bill]

By law, the police have to keep a custody log for each person who goes through the custody suite. You can ask for extracts from this. You need to approach the Station Superintendent at the police station where you were processed to enquire about this. This needs to be in writing. The recordings you mention are a Tape-Recorded Interview. The only person who can request a copy of the tape used for your interview (if you were interviewed) is your solicitor.

[old bill]

It can be a very traumatic experience for anyone, Lucy. If any of the muppets retailers employ as security staff these days had a brain, they'd be cabbages. The reality is, major retailers have been allowed to do what they like without any interference from Parliament. Indeed, you only have to see to Posh Boy Cameron, wringing his hands on television about "emburdening business with regulation", to wonder whose pockets his party is in. I am currently working on a Code of Practice for Civil Recovery, on another site, which, hopefully, addresses the abuses retailers and civil recovery operators engage in.

 

You first step is to write to the Station Superintendent at the police station you attended and enquire about extracts from the custody record. This will give you a better idea of what happened. Basically, the CPS can recommend the matter proceed, which means it goes to court, or a Formal Caution, which does not carry any financial or custodial penalty, or NFA (No Further Action).

[old bill]

Hi Lucy

 

There is thread somewhere on here from an ex TK max security guard and he says some stores have targets of how many people to catch, worth a read if you have not read it already.

 

 

That concerns me deeply. It encourages indiscriminate and reckless behaviour by retail security. If you're wondering why those who have learning difficulties and mental health issues feature heavily in cases dealt with by CAB it's because they are easy targets. They are easily influenced and easily lead. Over the last 39 years I have worked with such people in professional and voluntary capacities. The experience was useful when I was in the police force, but it meant that I got landed with interviewing people with these problems as no-one else wanted to do it. Typical. TK Maxx and any other retailer who thinks it is clever and acceptable practice to set arrest targets for their security staff should seriously reconsider their dangerous policy. Not only could they face legal action for discrimination, but wrongful arrest, unlawful detention and malicious prosecution, too. As Tesco found when they wrongly accused two women of shoplifting, the price of getting it wrong is high - £70,000 in damages each for the two women, plus the full costs of hearings at the Magistrates, Crown, High and Appeal Courts.

[old bill]

Thanks Old Bill, I cannot express how much I appreciate your input, I havent heard anything else from anyone yet from the CPS hopefully it will just disappear but that is really wishful thinking!

 

Your're welcome, Lucy. The final decision as to prosecution lies with the CPS. Please be assured that Crown Prosecutors work to a Code and have to be able to satisfy a test as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute and whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. At present, this prospect stands at 51% or more. Please also be assured that it costs the taxpayer £2,000 to take a case through a Magistrates Court, considerably more through a Crown Court. The retail industry cooked its goose years ago when it clogged the court system with cases involving small amounts of money - in one case, as little as 65 pence - and which resulted in cases involving serious crimes having to be abandoned due to statutory time-limits on the commencement of proceedings, thereby denying justice to the victims of serious crime. Before the retail industry starts throwing its collective weight about, it wants to take a long, hard look at its own behaviour and address its shortcomings and less creditable conduct, including ripping-off consumers of millions of pounds.

[old bill]

Hi Flowerbomb, I did get a letter from RLP and never replied and haven't had another yet. I am taking the advice of the good people on this site and refraining from replying from any threatening letters. I haven't heard from the CPS yet and am praying I don't as everyday I am waiting on that letter coming. I will post this on your thread too just incase you don't read this. As most have said, don't reply to it is the best advice, my thoughts were it would just agrevate a situation so until I get another letter I am sticking to the not replying, if the next one worries me I will seek the advice of the great people on this site!

 

Hope that helps

 

Lucy

 

Hi Lucy,

 

Unless procedures have changed,

you will receive a letter from the police force who dealt with the matter, not the CPS.

 

The Crown Prosecutor for your area will examine all the evidence placed before them and decide whether there is sufficient or insufficient evidence to justify any form of action against you.

 

If the Crown Prosecutor decides there is sufficient evidence,

they then have to decide whether there is a realistic prospect of securing a conviction and if it is in the public interest to prosecute.

 

As stated in an earlier post, the threshold for prospect of securing a conviction is currently 51% or higher.

 

If the Crown Prosecutor decides there is sufficient evidence, but there is not a realistic prospect of securing a conviction

or it is not in the public interest to prosecute, the Crown Prosecutor can recommend a Formal Caution be administered.

 

If there is insufficient evidence, the Crown Prosecutor will direct that no further action be taken.

 

This, in police circles is referred to as an NFA (No Further Action).

 

However, sometimes, some of the decisions made by Crown Prosecutors can be mind-boggling, so expect the unexpected.

 

As for the letter from RLP,

my considered judgement of this company's activities is that it is open to question as to whether the demands they make, on behalf of retailers,

amount to Unjustifiable Enrichment or something bordering on Fraud.

 

The A Retailer -v- Ms B and Ms K 2012 case, at Oxford CC, earlier this year,

clearly showed that the demands had been significantly exaggerated and that an attempt was made to mislead the court.

 

HHJ Harris, quite rightly, in my considered judgement, struck the claim out and refused leave to appeal.

 

I am just waiting for someone to counter-action them and one of their retailer clients. It would be interesting to see what RLP's and the retailer's response would be.

[old bill]

Thanks old Bill, not heard anything from the police yet, did receive another letter from RLP worded pretty strongly but am sticking to the non replying even though I had been wandering if I should sent the letter denying any knowledge? will wait until another arrives before I make a decision.

 

Thanks for your help, you are all very knowledgeable, and I really appreciate it. I am petrified of the letter from the CPS/Police coming, do you know that if the CPS advise the police that there should be NFA required if I would still receive a letter from the police informing me of this decision? Thanks again

 

Lucy

 

It can take some weeks for the CPS to come to a decision, Lucy, depending on their caseload and whether a case has to be referred up to the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the area in which the alleged offence took place. RLP do tend to wave the sabre around, but if you took the sabre off them and waved it in the direction of them and their retail clients, they would, in my considered judgement, back away. The case of A Retailer -v- Ms B and Ms K 2012 was quite clear in its condemnation of attempts to mislead the court and attempts by the retailer involved to unjustifiably enrich itself. The judgement of HHJ Charles Harris QC was clear and unequivocable - the retailer had no case. The decision to strike-out and refuse leave to appeal was, in my considered judgement, a correct decision by HHJ Harris. The Law Commission has already gone on record as saying that there is no legal basis for the fixed-sum claims demanded by RLP and retailers.

 

A poster on another site has succinctly summed up the unsafe nature of RLP's demands -

 

1. Retailers have already claimed the cost of security equipment in their premises against tax;

2. The cost of running such equipment is compounded into the price of merchandise on sale in the retailer's premises;

3. Security staff are not only employed to deter crime, they are also employed to ensure the physical security of the premises and its contents and safety of the staff who work there, as well as deal with any incidents affecting the physical security of the premises and its contents and safety of staff;

4. CCTV footage is normally handed to police in unedited form for forwarding to the CPS and it is they who decide whether the CCTV footage shows evidence of a crime, along with what is contained in the police report on the incident and statements from any witnesses;

 

CR operators need to be brought under the control of the Claims Regulator whether they want to or not. As stated previously, I am working on a Code of Practice for Civil Recovery which will, hopefully, address the issues that arise with the sort of claims made by operators such as RLP.