Shoplifting without "shoplifting"

This section is to discuss anything related to the Security Industry

Moderators: Bulldog, Big Paul, karlbee, hippy, Door Bitch, Boz

Postby bigboyblue » 25 Apr 2009, 17:00

Im not trying to be agressive, just assertive - you have failed to answer my question twice, or indeed apologise if you were incorrect.

This forum is a lot different to others - all of us, be it DS, SD or plain old 'gate man' deal with the law, and its application in our day jobs. If we get it wrong, we loose our job, and we may go to jail.

I wouldnt want someone to read your comments, and decide not to note something down because of it - and end up on the wrong end of a 'drop the soap' competition.

Re read your post. You didnt 'question' the statement made by me, you basically said it was wrong (and illegal at that). All Im asking you to do is prove it, so others reading this can make an informed decision

dodgy ground and any conviction would be very insecure. In fact I'm surprised that you didn't have your collar felt for this

If you dont want to answer the question, thats up to you, im sure others will make their own decisions about your advice.
WTD Door Supervisor
Posts: 234
Joined: 09 Jun 2008, 12:43

Postby securityguy » 25 Apr 2009, 17:53

Your implication was that you obtained a statement of guilt and then got the accused to sign that statement in your pocket book. You then suggested that on the basis of this signed statement you had secured a conviction or guilty plea.

The Human Rights implications of such behaviour doesn't even bear thinking about and there is plenty of case law concerning confessions/statements obtained without due process.

s.76(2)(b) of PACE renders such a confession unreliable. Whether you consider that getting such a suspect to sign your pocket book is a confession or not is irrelevant because ultimately your argument is that they have signed a statement confirming that they admitted the offence in question so a de facto confession!

Any future admission of guilt on the basis of this is unreliable and any conviction based upon this admission would be insecure.

Confessions obtained under the circumstances you describe are not only unreliable but you as a security guard are under no position to be behaving like this. It almost sounds as though you are trying to fulfill the role of the police.
WTD Rookie
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 Feb 2009, 15:03

Postby darkvoices » 25 Apr 2009, 21:22


i have a couple of MG11's on my computer. they are reday set up with my details on them and even a PND one.

i used to just print a load off, and carry them with me at all times.

as i worked various towns, and the stores never refilled their supplies, i carryied all my paperwork with me.

store exclusions, MG11's, civil recovery etc.

if you want a copy, ill sent you them accross, and you just put your details in, and save it, then print them as you need them.

if a shoplifter was 50 foot from my store, it meant i was running, and thats not good. :(

with reguard to theft by comsumption, people are saying "intent". its a fine line, as if you are offerig to pay for the empty packageing, there is no intent. but the goods remain the property of the store untill paid for.
so someone who drinks the milk, and the finds that he does ot have his wallet at the till, will be looked at as someoe who DID intend to not pay for the milk.

have had posh people, elderly people, and scroats shoplifting. have had women with prans and buggies, who will place goods in the hood of the prm, then pull out mobile and pretend to chat way whilst leaving the store without paying.

when lifted, they always say" oh, sorry i was on the phone, and i just forgot".

had a old deer in lancaster, quite posh looking, nick some ROC face cream. removed the item from the package,conealed, and placed the packaging back on the shelf.

she was 83.

i had to get a stop search cos i was so gobsmacked, lol. :shock: security staff (both plain clothed and uniformed) need more training for the jobs they are to do.
WTD Recruit
Posts: 135
Joined: 06 May 2008, 21:26

Postby karlbee » 26 Apr 2009, 09:46

Thanks Darkvoices,I have the statement template on the store computer but it takes longer for me to do on the computer due to my technical retardation,getting faster though :) Agree with you about running after suspects,one store I cover is on a rough estate,you do not want to be running down the street :wink: the problem I have in that store is that everyone dresses like a scroat.I do some serious dressing down but told the owner I would never wear a tracksuit.The other store is in a much better area but as you say posh people steal also,although not so obviously.Prams a nightmare and as you can imagine the scroaty store is full of them, or scummy mummys as I call them.I am just in the process of sorting out 2 that bring their collection of 7 kids to graze while they stand and watch
Posts: 4151
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 08:00
Location: North Yorkshire, home of Yorkshire lager

Postby bigboyblue » 26 Apr 2009, 12:05

We used to get the guard to have a quiet word in their ear, reminding them that they have to pay before consuming it. If they get shirty, simply use the eaxmple above - "What would happen if you forgot your wallet madam, it would take more of your time to sort it out, wouldnt it ?".
Most of them will see your point and agree.

Supermarkets are an interesting breed - ive never had so many people write into the supermarkets to ask that they be 'un banned'. Clothing and electrical retaillers dont get the same amount of people so desparate to get back in and shop. People are generally lazy, and dont want to have to travel long distances to use a supermarket where they aren't banned from !.

Securityguy -

If you actually read my comment - the note actually helped the accused's defence - he stated he had done it under duress. (which you have pointed out, is a valid defence to crime). Its not a confession, its a significant statement made by the accused in your presence. Its up to you if you want to write it down, and get them to sign it to say they made that statement. If they dont want to sign, no problems. If they want to sign it and then say you threatened them to do it, no problems - its for the COURT to decide if its admissable, not you or me.

I reiterate again - the police do it, and the court have no problems with it. You would be criticised in court if you didnt write down something which you would regard as a significant statement. Its up to you if you want to at the end of the day, I just dont want to look like a tit in court when it all falls apart.

And please please listen - human rights legislation doesn't apply to private individuals or private companies. As you have correctly pointed out, we aren't police, so dont have to comply !!.

You still havent explained why the police seem to do this process all the time, why the courts accept it all the time, and why its soo 'illegal' for us to do it.

EDIT: Even if you do consider his statement to be a 'confession', or you do get one that 'confesses', take a read below:

source: Centrex police training manual, Evidence and procedure

A confession is defined in s.82(1) PACE Act 1984 to include:
“Any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it,
whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in
words or otherwise.”

This is specifically dealt with by s.76 PACE Act 1984 which may be
summarised as follows:

1. Confessions generally are admissible if relevant.

2. If it is suggested that the confession was or may have been
obtained by oppression, or that something said or done was likely
to have made the confession unreliable, the confession cannot be
admitted unless the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt
that it was not so obtained, even if the court thinks it was true.

3. The court may raise the question of admissibility, even if the
defence do not and it may of its own motion require the
prosecution to provide that the confession should not be excluded
by s.76.

4. Facts discovered as a result of an inadmissible confession are still
admissible and an otherwise inadmissible confession may be
admissible to show how an accused person speaks or writes.

5. Only the accused can give evidence that a fact was discovered as a
result of an inadmissible confession; the route to its discovery must
otherwise be kept from the jury.
However, the precise wording should always be consulted for
accuracy. It is essential to remember that methods of obtaining
confessions which do not fall foul of s.76 may nevertheless result in
exclusion under s.78
WTD Door Supervisor
Posts: 234
Joined: 09 Jun 2008, 12:43

Postby bigboyblue » 26 Apr 2009, 12:33

Just having a quick look at the 'intention' bit (to go back to the milk question posted)

I thought most people were correct - as in 'keep the wrapper, pay for it, no theft'.

It would appear that the police training manuals seem to disagree:

Intention to permanently deprive (Section 6 of the
Theft Act 1968)

A person permanently deprives another of property when the intention
is to treat the thing as their own, to dispose of regardless of the other’s

Borrowing or lending may amount to so treating but only if it is for a
period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking
or disposal.

The thief may deprive the other by:
♦ keeping it
♦ eating or drinking it
♦ selling it
♦ burying, breaking, destroying it
♦ throwing it away or leaving it where the owner is unlikely to
recover it
♦ keeping the property until it has no further use, eg retaining a
season ticket until after the season ends before returning it to the

More discussions on milk coming up me thinks ........
WTD Door Supervisor
Posts: 234
Joined: 09 Jun 2008, 12:43

Postby securityguy » 26 Apr 2009, 14:38

You have paraphrased and ignored s76(2) which states that confession evidence is inadmissible if it was obtained in circumstances which are likely to make it unreliable.

A police training manual is hardly a definitive statement on law and is an exceptionally unreliable method of obtaining legal information.

My information comes from a colleague who is an experienced Magistrate who has excluded confessions.

The Human Rights Act applies to public bodies and also private companies carrying out public functions.
WTD Rookie
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 Feb 2009, 15:03

Re: Shoplifting without "shoplifting"

Postby alfsdad » 15 Jun 2009, 12:47

i have had a girl coming in store , and attempting to steal booze on a couple of occasions! i say attempt as i have alwys seen her on cctv ... and as she is leaving i stand at the door and she ends up dumping it !

i started shift the other night , first camera patrol and suprise suprise, looks whos hangin round the wine with a carrier bag ! same senario, she sees me grinnin at her, goes back into the aisles.......... i followed close on her heels, followed by a manager... anyway we end up challengin her in the store!! her gobby mate gets involved, the manager tells me to get the police down !! :roll: ........ " fu*&in do it then.. get em we aint left" " ive not nicked nowt" i bought it somewhere else , prove it" ...............

time for me to speak up !! long and short i got the wine back ! and another verbal ban from the manager......

not long after an off duty plod came in , im freindly with him and told him what happened! he said , i could have got them in , she had conceled it , i had good cctv of it , she was known to me and had treid it before, i had photo evidence and IRs about her from the other two times !!!!
BUT!! He said HEwould have done her for attempted,and bein in store after ban .. but hes not patrol plod, a lot of coppes would not be too happy about it ! depends on which plod you get !!!!!!!
WTD Door Supervisor
Posts: 287
Joined: 06 Sep 2008, 01:31


Return to Security Related Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest