Wrongly accused of shoplifting

matttye

spiritus wrote: »

What is the definition of "reasonable grounds" ?

• A store worker advising the store detective that they have definitely seen a customer take and conceal an item
• A store worker advising a store detective that they think they may have seen a customer take and conceal an item but can't be certain

It appears that store detectives have certain rules that need to be followed too

As far as I'm aware there is no statutory definition of 'reasonable grounds' but I can tell you that the grounds must be objectively reasonable - I.e. An ordinary and reasonable person in receipt of the same facts should come to the same conclusion.

You will have to look to case law to see examples of what did and did not constitute reasonable grounds in the eyes of the courts.

The question of whether the person had reasonable grounds to arrest would be left to the jury in a trial on indictment.

BykerSands

matttye wrote: »

As far as I'm aware there is no statutory definition of 'reasonable grounds' but I can tell you that the grounds must be objectively reasonable - I.e. An ordinary and reasonable person in receipt of the same facts should come to the same conclusion.

You will have to look to case law to see examples of what did and did not constitute reasonable grounds in the eyes of the courts.

The question of whether the person had reasonable grounds to arrest would be left to the jury in a trial on indictment.

Or in other words you haven't got a clue?

matttye

BykerSands wrote: »

Or in other words you haven't got a clue?

Clearly whether someone had reasonable grounds to suspect will be considered on a case by case basis. There will never be a finite amount of scenarios in which someone could have reasonable grounds to suspect. It's an open ended subject.

BykerSands

matttye wrote: »

Clearly whether someone had reasonable grounds to suspect will be considered on a case by case basis. There will never be a finite amount of scenarios in which someone could have reasonable grounds to suspect. It's an open ended subject.

Had you actually studied law you may have been able to give a specific case law instead of making it up as you go along.

matttye

BykerSands wrote: »

Had you actually studied law you may have been able to give a specific case law instead of making it up as you go along.

Why should I do all of the work?

Go to bed!

BykerSands

matttye wrote: »

Why should I do all of the work?

Go to bed!

Expectly, it's work for you as you don't know and would have to research it. Why not take your own legal advice when you don't know enough about the subject and go no comment?

matttye

BykerSands wrote: »

Expectly, it's work for you as you don't know and would have to research it. Why not take your own legal advice when you don't know enough about the subject and go no comment?

You're either trolling or have a real reading or comprehension problem....

BykerSands

matttye wrote: »

You're either trolling or have a real reading or comprehension problem....

Whatever. You'll have a reply that doesn't answer the question regardless of what I say.

pendragon_arther

matttye wrote: »

You're either trolling or have a real reading or comprehension problem....

It's a troll. I've seen it on other forums.

rtho782

Personally I'd have just told the security guard to do one and gone on with my day. I have better things to do than waste my time reassuring them over their random fears and accusations.