Civil Recovery Fine from Sainsbury's solicitors - Advice needed urgently

lincroft1710

hawk30 wrote: »

Technically, you don't have to leave the store to commit theft.

True, but does there not have to be an "intention to deprive/steal from" which OP claims her friend's son was not doing.

wealdroam

lincroft1710 wrote: »

True, but does there not have to be an "intention to deprive/steal from" which OP claims her friend's son was not doing.

Isn't that what most people would say if they got caught?

lincroft1710

wealdroam wrote: »

Isn't that what most people would say if they got caught?

Probably...

Valli

lincroft1710 wrote: »

True, but does there not have to be an "intention to deprive/steal from" which OP claims her friend's son was not doing.

wealdroam wrote: »

Isn't that what most people would say if they got caught?

That, and the classic 'I have NEVER done anything like this before and I am so sorry and I will never, ever do it again'.

frugal_mike

wealdroam wrote: »

Isn't that what most people would say if they got caught?

I would like to think that there would have to be some evidence of intent at least, such as CCTV evidence of a deliberate attempt to hide the goods etc. Also if the items in question were low value, and the person had paid for other items, then that would be evidence in favour surely? I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but as other people have pointed out it's not beyond the realms of possibility to accidentally miss something.

wealdroam

frugal_mike wrote: »

I would like to think that there would have to be some evidence of intent at least, such as CCTV evidence of a deliberate attempt to hide the goods etc. Also if the items in question were low value, and the person had paid for other items, then that would be evidence in favour surely? I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but as other people have pointed out it's not beyond the realms of possibility to accidentally miss something.

Yes, I agree.

cookie365

lincroft1710 wrote: »

True, but does there not have to be an "intention to deprive/steal from" which OP claims her friend's son was not doing.

This.

Stealing may well lead to dismissal, but he hasn't stolen anything. He didn't have the intention to permanently deprive, and indeed hasn't been charged.

He needs to check what his contract of employment says.

He isn't liable to pay this charge unless a court orders him to, though he might decide he would be better off if he does to avoid a court order, or if it puts his job on the line.

And on a practical level, if what he's done warrants dismissal, doesn't it warrant dismissal regardless of whether he pays this charge?

Takeaway_Addict

malchish wrote: »

Countless times I have been overcharged at a supermarket by a cashier. £7.99 charged instead of £2.99, five items charged when in fact I only bought four... I wish I could have £150 from them each time this happened!

yes but this above isn't theft.

This £150 fine as has been pointed out is a penalty and can be ignored...which is a shame.

keyser666

google RLP and HHJ Harris and oxford county court

keyser666

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?36904-RLP-and-the-Oxford-test-case-The-truth-and-the-lies