shoplifting allegation

[liberty jones]

I'm writning in the hope that someone can offer me some guidance.

Yesterday my 13 year old daughter was shopping with two friends in Debenhams. She arrived home with her friends mother who told me they'd been accused of shoplifting.Both my daughter and friend 1 dney the offence but friend 3 admitted to stealing a necklace (which) was round her neck. They were arrested after leaving Debenhams and shopping in another shop. The matter was dealt with by store dectectives who asked thm to empty their bags and show receipts for their purchases. \The necklace was the only stolen item. Both my daughter and her friend say they did not know ffriend 3 had intended to steal the necklace and didn't realise what had happened until the arrest. All three girls were asked to sign an order of exclusion from Debenhams before my friend arrived at the store. Neither she nor I realised they'd had to sign that order until later that evening.Both girls are adamant they did not know the third was stealing.The matter was not referred to the police.

Today I went into Debenhams to find out what proof they have re the 2 girls involvement and the Support Manager advised he'd seen the CCTV footage which shows my daughter putting the necklace arond the third girls neck (she admits they looked at and discussed the necklaces but says she then spoke to her other friend and hadn't realised the necklace was not removed). Iasked to see the CCTV footage as UNless I saw for myself I couldn't believe my daughter is a thief. He advised I'd have to pay£50.00 and even then I wouldn't be guaranteed to be allowed to look at the footage. I said I'd pay the money and he then said the matter was still open and they may decide to involve the police.I said I still wanted to go ahead and he said I had to request this in writng which I dully did. He advised I'd hear form him in writing hopefuuly within a week.

Please advise me what to do next.

[patdavies]

1) Debenhams store detectives have no right of arrest.

2) They should not have dealt with a minor without a responsible adult.

3) the 'exclusion' agreement signed by a minor is not worth the paper it is written on.

4) I can see no justification whatsoever for any sort of charge; much less £50.

5) You (or your daughter) can do a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). they have admitted that the footage and the 'agreement' exist - they should produce copies. the absolute maximum (statutory) charge for this is £10.

6) without proof, Debenhams are defaming her character - particular so since they 'arrested' (as in unlawfully detained) her in another shop.

7) if she was physically restrained then they may well be guilty of assault

 

Write at once to Debenhams with both a SAR and a demand for an apology. Unless they have incontrovertible proof of your daughter's guilt, they do not have a leg to stand on.

 

In your position (if your daughter is being entirely truthful with you) I would welcome the involvement of the Police.

[jampot]

Abosolutely agree with #2

[liberty jones]

Thanks for the advice!

 

Where can I find an SAR ?

[wycombemariner]

Debenhams have broken the law just by speaking to them without an adult their!

[liberty jones]

Thanks everyone you've made me feel much more positive. I believe my daughters version and am proceeding as advised. I've also let the other parent know as he is visiting Debenhams this evening.

[j.barton1]

Hi, I have worked as management in retail for many years so i hope i can help a little. this whole thing seems iffy..store detectives can get a little above themselves sometimes...sorry to offend any out there..the exclusion order is the only thing they can do if they didnt involve the police..thats the only right they have aswell as citizens arrests..which anyone can do...Definatley contest this if your daughter is innocent in this...too many kids get bad reputations for the sake of others..

jenny

[patdavies]

sorry to offend any out there..the exclusion order is the only thing they can do if they didnt involve the police..thats the only right they have aswell as citizens arrests..which anyone can do.

 

Let's try not to go down a tangent with this nonsense about "Citizens' Arrest" shall we?

 

Citizens' Arrest is only available for indictable offences (previously known - before SOCA - as arrestable offences). Shoplifting is a summary offence - any attempt at a Citizens' Arrest will backfire on the arrestor as it is unlawful detention.

 

Furthermore, the power is only available whilst a crime is taking place. In this case, the alleged perpetrator(s) had long since passed that time. They had even entered another premises

[Zamzara]

Let's try not to go down a tangent with this nonsense about "Citizens' Arrest" shall we?

 

Citizens' Arrest is only available for indictable offences (previously known - before SOCA - as arrestable offences). Shoplifting is a summary offence - any attempt at a Citizens' Arrest will backfire on the arrestor as it is unlawful detention.

 

Theft can be dealt with by magistrates, but it's an 'either way' offence.

 

Edited to add: however, citizen's arrest requires a very high standard of evidence, not mere suspicion as with the police. Therefore if the CCTV doesn't back the store up they will be in trouble.

[StudentInDebt]

When I worked in a department store the advice we were given to detaining shoplifters was only to do so if we watched an individual take an item and then we kept them and the item in sight until they tried to leave the store without attempting to pay for it. If for any reason we lost sight of the individual or there was the slightest doubt as to whether they still had the item in their possession we were to do nothing to stop them. If we did not follow this guidance we were told that we were opening ourselves up to charges of assault and false imprisonment and in that event the store would not support us.

 

In any event the police should have been called, if they weren't then the store hasn't really got a leg to stand on.

[Russjo]

I make you right on that count, have worked in management for a supermarket in the past. Staff generally work on this basis:

 

Selection - did they see the individual select the product

Concealement - did they see it concealed

Observation - did they watch the inidividual with the item

Non-paymet - did the watch the individual pass the point of payment option

Exit - did the individual leave the store

 

In my experience, what StudentInDebt is saying is absolutely right. They are minors and should never have been handled without a responsible adult present. They are bang out of order

[gyzmo]

Another way is to see if the security staff have breached the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes of Conduct. If they have failed to comply, action can be taken against them. You will be best off seeing a solicitor about this.

 

On another point, if someone has done something wrong (i.e, stolen a necklace), then they should be punished. It is only fair and just. If I had found my kid brother in a similar situation, he'd wish that the security staff would lock him up by the time my mother had finished with him.

[Esio Trot]

1) Debenhams store detectives have no right of arrest.

Not quite. Any citizen has the right to arrest another person - under PACE and other specific pieces of legislation.

2) They should not have dealt with a minor without a responsible adult.

Once a person is under arrest, then the the arresting person is responsible for their well-being and for ensuring that the rights of the arrested person are met. For a minor (which includes persons whose identity is not established, and who may be classed as a minor), this means that no formal interview or search can be made unless an appropriate adult is present. Even the voluntary emptying of their handbags is inadmissible - there was no appropriate adult present.

3) the 'exclusion' agreement signed by a minor is not worth the paper it is written on.

Correct

4) I can see no justification whatsoever for any sort of charge; much less £50.

There is no need to pay this. There is no admissible evidence.

5) You (or your daughter) can do a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). they have admitted that the footage and the 'agreement' exist - they should produce copies. the absolute maximum (statutory) charge for this is £10.

To pay this is a waste of money. The matter can go no further.

6) without proof, Debenhams are defaming her character - particular so since they 'arrested' (as in unlawfully detained) her in another shop.

Proof is not necessary at the time of arrest - as long as there are reasonable grounds. However, the arresting person has to justify the reasonable grounds, and if this cannot be done then the arrested person (or their parent/guardian) can sue for unlawful arrest.

7) if she was physically restrained then they may well be guilty of assault

Not necessarily. "Reasonable force" is allowed to physically restrain a suspect. Again though, the arresting person has to justify any level of force used.

Write at once to Debenhams with both a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and a demand for an apology. Unless they have incontrovertible proof of your daughter's guilt, they do not have a leg to stand on.

Yes, write at once to Debenhams. However, your first letter should be a "please explain" getting them to justify their actions. In the same letter ask for a copy of their complaints procedure.

 

Keep your powder dry at the start. You can come out with all guns blazing once they have hung themselves.

[liberty jones]

To Gyzmo,

I totally agree person who stole the necklace should be punished but don't think she should have been interviewed or made to sign anything without an adult known to her present. Likewise if my daughter knew of the intention to steal and didn't walk away then she should be punished, however she maintains she is innocent and I think the store handled things badly.

[jampot]

To Gyzmo,

I totally agree person who stole the necklace should be punished but don't think she should have been interviewed or made to sign anything without an adult known to her present. Likewise if my daughter knew of the intention to steal and didn't walk away then she should be punished, however she maintains she is innocent and I think the store handled things badly.

 

Only your daughter knows whether or not she knew of the intention to steal, and even in this day and age, she still deserves to remain innocent until proven otherwise.

 

Debenhams have (in hindsight) hopefully taught her a valuable lesson about the friend(s) she hangs around with, but it seems they've gone about things quite poorly.

 

Hopefully Debenhams will respond correctly to your letter asking them to explain, and will apologise to you and your daughter, and lift the silly exclusion they have placed.

[patdavies]

Not quite. Any citizen has the right to arrest another person - under PACE and other specific pieces of legislation.

 

There is no "Citizen's Arrest" for a non-indictable offence. There are no grounds for a "citizen" to arrest on suspicion; only on certainty.

 

Someone making a "Citizen's Arrest" must immediately inform the Police - they may not force someone to return to a store nor institute their own procedures.

 

This site gives some good advice.

[blacksheep1979]

A male security officer searching a female suspect even more so an underage female suspect without a female present or parent in the case of an underage person could end up in vvv hot water if allegations were made. Maybe something you should point out to debenhams and suggest the person in question needs a spot of training.

[Russjo]

Oh my god, that's even worse

[dx100uk]

There is no "Citizen's Arrest" for a non-indictable offence. There are no grounds for a "citizen" to arrest on suspicion; only on certainty.

 

Someone making a "Citizen's Arrest" must immediately inform the Police - they may not force someone to return to a store nor institute their own procedures.

 

This site gives some good advice.

 

but a wee bit out of date now pat.

 

Right, where do I start ......

 

Powers of arrest: ANYONE, can arrest ANYONE who has comitted an

INDICTABLE (IE triable at crown or magistrates court) offence.

 

This includes YOU, the humble citizen. This power of arrest is

referred to as the 'any person' powers. It used to be under PACE

(police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984), but got re written and

superceeded by SOCPA (Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act)

2006.

 

For instance -

 

You see an elederly woman being mugged, her money stolen. You know an

offence had been comitted (robbery / theft.

 

The law gives you the right, power, whatever you want to call it, to

lawfully arrest that person for that offence. You can take hold of

that person, and detain them until arrival of the police.

 

Section 3 Criminal Law Act gives you the power to use such force as

is REASONABLE to detain the person. Remeber REASONABLE people ! - you

all know what happened to Tony Martin when he went a bit OTT with the

burglar thing.

 

Security and police use a document called the 'conflict management

model'. Basically, it shows you how to use force, when the suspect

uses force. They 'up the ante' by kicking out etc, so you 'up the

level of force' used against them to keep them there.

 

Handcuffs are a interesting one. Before about 8 years ago, I had

never heard of security using cuffs. However, times change.

 

Theres no law that says security / door staff etc CAN use cuffs, but

then again, theres no law that says they CANT cuse cuffs. We spoke to

Association of Chief Police Officers, (ACPO), who stated that theres

no law for police to use cuffs either. As long as its proportional

(IE not handcuffing 80 year old shoplifters), and that you have

training, all well and good, go ahead and use.

 

So, as long as thers an offence, and its triable in a crown court -

then YES you can arrest them lawfully, YES you can use force to

detain them, or to stop them continuing to offend, and YES you can

use handcuffs to assist in that detention.

 

Its a shame that security staff actually have to detain, but with the

lack of police, its a fact of life. Having worked with lots of

different shop / pub watch schemes, there is a very clear difference

with those that work together with the police, and those who clearly

dont!!.

 

 

dx100uk

[patdavies]

Two point.

 

1) Citizens' arrest only exists for indictable offences - that is those dealt with at Crown Court level.

 

2) Any private citizen making such an arrest (and this includes security guards and store detectives) has no authority to force someone to return to certain premises, and certainly no power to search. Somebody arrested under these powers may only be detained for so long as necessary for them to be handed to the Police.

[dw190]

IIRC an Indictable Offence is any offence that you can be arrested for.

 

Shoplifting is an offence that you can be arrested for so is therefore an Indictable Offence.

[rogerebaker]

Two point.

 

1) Citizens' arrest only exists for indictable offences - that is those dealt with at Crown Court level. Theft is an indictable offence, always has been and remains so. Therefor a store detective dealing with a shoplifter has every right to make an arrest provided certain conditions are met.

2) Any private citizen making such an arrest (and this includes security guards and store detectives) has no authority to force someone to return to certain premises, and certainly no power to search. Somebody arrested under these powers may only be detained for so long as necessary for them to be handed to the Police.

Clearly a store detective cannot force the suspect back to the shop but I suggest in the majority of circumstances like this they are invited to return which they do so willingly. I cant see how this is an issue.

[rogerebaker]

IIRC an Indictable Offence is any offence that you can be arrested for.

 

Shoplifting is an offence that you can be arrested for so is therefore an Indictable Offence.

You can be arrested for dropping litter but it isnt an indictable offence?

[dw190]

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005

[patdavies]

Clearly a store detective cannot force the suspect back to the shop but I suggest in the majority of circumstances like this they are invited to return which they do so willingly. I cant see how this is an issue.

 

The reason that it is an issue, is from the original poster.

1) If the three were 'forced' to return to the store to be searched then both the detention and the search were unlawful;

2) If they were restrained physically to be returned to the store then this could be an assault and unlawful imprisonment;

3) A private citizen may only arrest and hand over to a constable. There is no lawful arrest to carry through the store's detention, search and exclusion policies;

4) If they were 'arrested' publicly in another store, then the question of defamation arises.