One further piece of information I have discovered in a document published in "Police - The voice of the service" (Dec 2004) about Civil Recovery. It seems to imply in this that the police will not often not agree to provide any details to Civil Recovery Specialists if they attempt to take a case to court, and specifically states:

"As a result of the pilot scheme, Retail Loss Prevention Limited
launched its service nationally and now represents many of the major

retailers including Argos, Boots, Debenhams, Harrods, Sainsbury’s and

WH Smith.

Offenders are pursued on the basis of either the tort of trespass, or

where appropriate, of conspiracy. Offenders under the age of 16 or over

the age of 65, persons suffering from mental illness, or those on confirmed

drug rehabilitation programmes are not pursued. Otherwise,

there is no discrimination in the action and offenders are pursued irrespective

of gender, social class, apparent income or any other factor.

It needs to be made clear to offenders that they are not invited into

retailer stores for unlawful acts, nor, in the case of staff theft/fraud, are

they employed by retailers to commit them. Particularly relevant are

cases where a banning notice or exclusion order has been served on a

previous occasion."

This thus states that they do not pursue those under 16 years of age, which seems to imply that this letter is a try-on?. In any case I understood that trespass even if proven in a civil court results in only derisory damages now?

Full document on:
http://www.polfed.org/1204taking_stock.pdf

Roland Perry wrote in news:kUFYCRwz2enHFAL
:

In message , at 14:15:05 on
Mon, 28 Jan 2008, bealoid remarked:

[snip]

Remembering, of course, that they didn't find the item on her. Who
searched her, the police or a security officer? Would that make any
difference in court?

Why does it matter who didn't find it? Are you saying that if a police
officer didn't find it, that's even better proof she didn't nick it?

I hope that officers are trained in proper search procedures, and that they
know how to write a report.

If a PO said they didn't find it I'd be more likely to believe that nothing
was there to be found. Some random security guard - I have no idea and
would be much more likely to say that there wasn't anything there.

Would the daughter be able to get a witness statement off the police
officer? There are procedures to force witnesses to appear, of course.

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:40:04 +0000, The Todal put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Let us know what his views are (though of course, you may wish to disguise
the circumstances sufficiently to ensure that nobody would be able to
identify your daughter from the facts). I think the fact remains, though,
that even if you are advised that your daughter is likely to lose the case,
you should offer far less than the sum claimed, and explain that she doesn't
have any more money because she is not employed.

Indeed. As a general principle, you should never give in completely to
any demand for money that could be enforced in a civil court, unless
you're sure that you don't have any reasonable chance of avoiding
making payment in full. If you think you're in the right, then don't
make any offer at all, while if you think you're in the wrong, then
try to negotiate tehm down to what you can afford to pay - a practice
expressed neatly in the maxim "In the right, put up a fight; in the
wrong, string them along".

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"There's just too much that time cannot erase"

Mark Goodge wrote in
house.net:

[snip]

That depends on how promptly the shoplifter pays up. The shop will
often use that as a bargaining point, promising the shoplifter that
they won't be reported to the police if they pay the amount demanded.

Isn't that in itself a bit dodgy? Similar to a "no questions asked" policy
is dodgy.

"bealoid" wrote in message
...
Mark Goodge wrote in
house.net:

[snip]

That depends on how promptly the shoplifter pays up. The shop will
often use that as a bargaining point, promising the shoplifter that
they won't be reported to the police if they pay the amount demanded.

Isn't that in itself a bit dodgy? Similar to a "no questions asked"
policy
is dodgy.

I doubt that any major store group would operate such a policy. Demanding
money not to report a crime can amount to blackmail or perverting the course
of justice, and it's unlikely any retailer would be advised to do it.

Chris R

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:30:09 +0000, Chris R put finger to keyboard and
typed:


"bealoid" wrote in message
. ..
Mark Goodge wrote in
house.net:

[snip]

That depends on how promptly the shoplifter pays up. The shop will
often use that as a bargaining point, promising the shoplifter that
they won't be reported to the police if they pay the amount demanded.

Isn't that in itself a bit dodgy? Similar to a "no questions asked"
policy
is dodgy.

I doubt that any major store group would operate such a policy. Demanding
money not to report a crime can amount to blackmail or perverting the course
of justice, and it's unlikely any retailer would be advised to do it.

But the point is that if the item is paid for (along with any
ancillary expenses), then no crime has been committed. Theft requires
intent to permanently deprive; willingness to compensate the retailer
for the loss of the item indicates lack of such intent.

The retailer's offer to the alleged shoplifter isn't "If you pay up,
we won't tell anyone about the crime", it's "If you pay for the item
and compensate us for the hassle you've caused, then you won't have
committed a crime".

If the person who took the item was prosecuted for theft after having
made such a payment, they would have a very good defence to the effect
that the item supposedly stolen has, in fact, been paid for and that
the retailer has not been permanently deprived of any financial value.

What this probably means in practice, too, is that if the person
responds to the demand from the retailer with a polite response saying
something like "I'm sorry, I didn't intend to steal the item and
simply forgot that I still had it with me when I left the shop -
here's a cheque for its full retail price in payment", then there
probably wouldn't be much else that the retailer could actually do.
Such a response would certainly be an absolute defence to a charge of
theft, provided the payment was made prior to the prosecution.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Shake off your golden shackles, children of time no more"

Mark Goodge wrote in
house.net:

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:30:09 +0000, Chris R put finger to keyboard and
typed:


"bealoid" wrote in message
.. .
Mark Goodge wrote in
house.net:

[snip]

That depends on how promptly the shoplifter pays up. The shop will
often use that as a bargaining point, promising the shoplifter that
they won't be reported to the police if they pay the amount
demanded.

Isn't that in itself a bit dodgy? Similar to a "no questions asked"
policy
is dodgy.

I doubt that any major store group would operate such a policy.
Demanding money not to report a crime can amount to blackmail or
perverting the course of justice, and it's unlikely any retailer would
be advised to do it.

But the point is that if the item is paid for (along with any
ancillary expenses), then no crime has been committed. Theft requires
intent to permanently deprive; willingness to compensate the retailer
for the loss of the item indicates lack of such intent.

The retailer's offer to the alleged shoplifter isn't "If you pay up,
we won't tell anyone about the crime", it's "If you pay for the item
and compensate us for the hassle you've caused, then you won't have
committed a crime".

If the person who took the item was prosecuted for theft after having
made such a payment, they would have a very good defence to the effect
that the item supposedly stolen has, in fact, been paid for and that
the retailer has not been permanently deprived of any financial value.

Many people don't know their rights about being searched.

Ann, a young teenager, steals some ear-rings. She's searched by the shop
security guard who finds the ear rings. He calls the police. Ann offers
to pay for the cost of the ear-rings.

Has Ann committed an offence; could she be prosecuted and found guilty?

What this probably means in practice, too, is that if the person
responds to the demand from the retailer with a polite response saying
something like "I'm sorry, I didn't intend to steal the item and
simply forgot that I still had it with me when I left the shop -
here's a cheque for its full retail price in payment", then there
probably wouldn't be much else that the retailer could actually do.
Such a response would certainly be an absolute defence to a charge of
theft, provided the payment was made prior to the prosecution.

How many times could a person get away with this?

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:15:08 +0000, bealoid put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge wrote in
shouse.net:

If the person who took the item was prosecuted for theft after having
made such a payment, they would have a very good defence to the effect
that the item supposedly stolen has, in fact, been paid for and that
the retailer has not been permanently deprived of any financial value.

Many people don't know their rights about being searched.

Ann, a young teenager, steals some ear-rings. She's searched by the shop
security guard who finds the ear rings. He calls the police. Ann offers
to pay for the cost of the ear-rings.

Has Ann committed an offence; could she be prosecuted and found guilty?

Maybe. I suspect it would hinge on whether she could convince the
court that her initial failure to pay for the ear-rings was
accidental. If she gave the impression of offering to pay only because
the police were involved, then it might be a different story.

What this probably means in practice, too, is that if the person
responds to the demand from the retailer with a polite response saying
something like "I'm sorry, I didn't intend to steal the item and
simply forgot that I still had it with me when I left the shop -
here's a cheque for its full retail price in payment", then there
probably wouldn't be much else that the retailer could actually do.
Such a response would certainly be an absolute defence to a charge of
theft, provided the payment was made prior to the prosecution.

How many times could a person get away with this?

At least once :-)

The difference between this and the scenario where the police are
called as a result of an in-store search is that here, the defendant
could argue that the store, by requesting payment/compensation rather
than going to the police immediately, is not treating the incident as
deliberate theft and hence there is no theft provided that the item is
paid for.

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"I believe in the kingdom come, then all the colours will bleed into one"