Theft or not...
Discussion
Whilst queuing to pay for goods at my local Tescos last week a gentleman decided rather than wait, he decided to walk past the counter with his money, leave it at the counter and walk out. The nice lady tried to explain that she had to scan his items but the gent was having none of it.
So is this theft/shoplifting. He had paid but has no receipt.
So is this theft/shoplifting. He had paid but has no receipt.
Jasandjules said:
He doesn't need a receipt. He paid.
So where is the record to say that he has paid the correct amount for the goods he walked out with?If he had £40 of goods and left the store having put £30 down on the checkout then he is guilty of theft.
(And if he had £30 of goods and left £40 then he's an idiot!).
The fact that he put money on the checkout doesn't mean that the store had accepted payment as they were not dealing with him at that time - He simply barged his way past dumping money behind him!
4rephill said:
So where is the record to say that he has paid the correct amount for the goods he walked out with?
If he had £40 of goods and left the store having put £30 down on the checkout then he is guilty of theft.
WrongIf he had £40 of goods and left the store having put £30 down on the checkout then he is guilty of theft.
4rephill said:
(And if he had £30 of goods and left £40 then he's an idiot!).
The fact that he put money on the checkout doesn't mean that the store had accepted payment as they were not dealing with him at that time - He simply barged his way past dumping money behind him!
Right - but what if they then decided to bank the money with the rest of the day's takings ? The fact that he put money on the checkout doesn't mean that the store had accepted payment as they were not dealing with him at that time - He simply barged his way past dumping money behind him!
Theft Act 1968 said:
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
It's clear that the 'customer' appropriated property belonging to another - it always was Tesco's property and there is no valid acceptance (although Tesco could affirm the appropriation by taking the money). Clearly there is an intention to permanently deprive.So that leads us to the question - was the conduct dishonest? This needs the Ghosh test to determine it.
CPS said:
According to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was what was done dishonest?
If it was dishonest by those standards, did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the conduct as dishonest?
The first limb is - would ordinary reasonable people consider that dishonest? I'm torn: I know that Tesco's loss prevention will consider that a loss and they may have no way of allocating or taking the funds received, but the only thing stopping them from having that benefit is the procedures that they've chosen to implement. So while I'd consider that an ordinary, reasonable and honest person could consider the behaviour dishonest, I'm not convinced that ordinary, reasonable and honest people would hold that opinion as a whole.If it was dishonest by those standards, did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the conduct as dishonest?
Regardless of that, I'm fairly sure that an affirmative defence raised by the 'customer' on the second limb of Ghosh - that he did not realise that the conduct would be considered dishonest - would be successful and therefore the offence would not be made out, or worth prosecuting.
Edited by CYMR0 on Saturday 12th July 10:45
marshalla said:
4rephill said:
So where is the record to say that he has paid the correct amount for the goods he walked out with?
If he had £40 of goods and left the store having put £30 down on the checkout then he is guilty of theft.
WrongIf he had £40 of goods and left the store having put £30 down on the checkout then he is guilty of theft.
If you go into a shop, place £40 worth of goods on the counter, had over £30 and try to walk out then you are going to be guilty of theft of property as you have not paid the correct amount! - If I'm wrong then prove it! (and then I'll pop into town and have a field day buying thousands of pounds worth of goods for a pound a time!).
marshalla said:
Wrong
4rephill said:
Show Me the Law that states you can remove goods from a store without having to pay the full cost of the goods, without agreement from the store!
I think the point is that it's not the fact of leaving an incomplete amount that completes the theft, it's the need to prove dishonesty.Assuming dishonesty is made out then some or all of the goods were stolen.
Edited by CYMR0 on Saturday 12th July 11:00
4rephill said:
Show Me the Law that states you can remove goods from a store without having to pay the full cost of the goods, without agreement from the store!
If you go into a shop, place £40 worth of goods on the counter, had over £30 and try to walk out then you are going to be guilty of theft of property as you have not paid the correct amount! - If I'm wrong then prove it! (and then I'll pop into town and have a field day buying thousands of pounds worth of goods for a pound a time!).
Standard retail contract concepts of offer and acceptance. The marked price is their suggested amount, but the contract is only formed when they accept your offered amount. The two do not have to match. If you go into a shop, place £40 worth of goods on the counter, had over £30 and try to walk out then you are going to be guilty of theft of property as you have not paid the correct amount! - If I'm wrong then prove it! (and then I'll pop into town and have a field day buying thousands of pounds worth of goods for a pound a time!).
Now, off you pop and enjoy your day of haggling (or do you always pay sticker price for cars ? ).
P.S. - thanks for changing the nature of your point by introducing the "agreement" element which wasn't in your original post - it had to be determined, which is why the "theft" issue is unclear.
Edited by marshalla on Saturday 12th July 11:03
gcollins said:
How i see this is the store only want to scan items for their benefit. How often do you go to a small newsagent and have a paper or a bar of chocolate scanned.....not often.
The have to be scanned to ascertain the price.The retailer in the OP had no way of knowing what goods were taken or if the correct purchase price was left without scanning the items.
PurpleMoonlight said:
gcollins said:
How i see this is the store only want to scan items for their benefit. How often do you go to a small newsagent and have a paper or a bar of chocolate scanned.....not often.
The have to be scanned to ascertain the price.The retailer in the OP had no way of knowing what goods were taken or if the correct purchase price was left without scanning the items.
Tyre Smoke said:
mel said:
Technically that's b0110x, it's not theft at all as there are five key criteria to be fulfilled for it to be.
Go on then.1. Intent to deprive?
2. No intent to pay?
3. No means to pay?
4. Lives in a caravan?
5. Drives an old Transit pick up?
Genuinely, what are they?
Appropriates
Property
Belonging to another
With the intention of depriving the other of it
If he left payment, the procing dishonesty would be the tricky part. Bad manners is not the same as dishonesty.
I don't view the leaving of money as the leaving of payment. It's the leaving of compensation for taking the property without permission.
Payment can only be made as part of a transaction.
S2 of the Theft Act 1968 provides some assistance.
...(2) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
My personal opinion is that it is dishonest to act in this way. The fact that the retailer hasn't suffered a financial loss doesn't make the act honest. I don't think it is obvious that it is dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people.
Payment can only be made as part of a transaction.
S2 of the Theft Act 1968 provides some assistance.
...(2) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
My personal opinion is that it is dishonest to act in this way. The fact that the retailer hasn't suffered a financial loss doesn't make the act honest. I don't think it is obvious that it is dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people.
Zeeky said:
I don't view the leaving of money as the leaving of payment. It's the leaving of compensation for taking the property without permission.
Payment can only be made as part of a transaction.
S2 of the Theft Act 1968 provides some assistance.
...(2) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
My personal opinion is that it is dishonest to act in this way. The fact that the retailer hasn't suffered a financial loss doesn't make the act honest. I don't think it is obvious that it is dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people.
But he was not just willing to pay - he actually paid.Payment can only be made as part of a transaction.
S2 of the Theft Act 1968 provides some assistance.
...(2) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
My personal opinion is that it is dishonest to act in this way. The fact that the retailer hasn't suffered a financial loss doesn't make the act honest. I don't think it is obvious that it is dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people.
There is no dishonesty if he left full payment for the goods. There is no intent. You must prove mens rea (state of mind) to prove dishonesty.
Case dismissed .....
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 12th July 12:55
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff