You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hi, can anyone shed some light on the legal side of things here please
Called to pick up 13yr old daughter from Primark as she was detained for shoplifting. Store say she had items in her pockets when leaving the store. Daughter says she forgot she had items and they were in her hand. She was stopped before leaving the store. The store did not contact police but did take her photograph before I got there and will circulate to all stores in town.
1. I will ask for CCTV and if the item are clearly in her hand when leaving then I feel it's a genuine mistake and the store have over reacted.
2. Are they allowed to take a photograph of a minor without parental permission and then store and circulate that photograph in a database.
Thanks in advance. I am keen to clear it up as daughter has never been in any kind of trouble before and it would be totally out of character.
If it was before she left there is no case to answer as she hasn’t taken anything from the store.
Best course of action for the store would’ve been a request to pay for them. Obv a learning experience for yr daughter and store staff!
cctv is one thing, but detaining and taking photo of a minor is not within shop security remit.
Even if they were in her hand, if she was leaving without paying it's shoplifting. I'm not sure of the legal position but having her image circulated is a better outcome than a conviction for theft. Teenagers shoplift, not all of them but It's extremely common. Hard for a parent to accept I know. Fortunately for most it's a temporary phase. I am not saying your daughter did it deliberately, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility in your position.
Don't know about 2 but I do know from previous discussions that taking images to assist with a potential prosecution is lawful. Taking images in a public place too, although whether that is subject to data protection I don't know. I do know that there are frequently pictures of 'do you recognise this man' type on police appeals.
For 1/ teenagers get egged on to do all sorts of things they shouldn't by peers. I'd be looking to 4F it first, and then if the evidence is there whether mistake or not I'd be looking to try to de-escalate it rather than the other way round. You say it's out of character, etc., but they don't know that and if you try and fight fire with fire are you risking them saying 'f you then.... and the evidence sounds like it'll back them up, that she was taking items out of the shop without paying for them.
Don't be that enabling parent that automatically defends their kids.
items in pockets? Probably not a very credible excuse especially if they were high value or the kind of thing you don't normally put in your pocket. They said she was heading for the exit too.
IIRC there is no right per se to not be photographed.
A mate of mine got caught shoplifting as a kid and he never did it again because he got in a lot of trouble with his parents. It was just a kind of teen phase and he's quite respectable now 😀
One months withdrawl of pudding priviledge.
We gave the cops a video of a lady putting a bracelet in her pocket. They didn’t proceed as they “couldn’t see a crime being committed”.
You need to have physically left the premises for it to be shoplifting, even if you’re past the till and heading for the door.
Re cctv then it’s private property so they can essentially do what they want (may need to warn you), not sure about its admissibility in court, though.
One months withdrawl of pudding priviledge.
I’d just like to point out that this is 10 years old. 10 years!
You need to have physically left the premises for it to be shoplifting, even if you’re past the till and heading for the door.
Good legal advice but bad parenting advice; the obvious implication being that she did nothing wrong.
If they have CCTV they should have a notice saying something like "images are being captured for the purpose of crime prevention" - I expect that will also cover taking photos.
You need to have physically left the premises for it to be shoplifting
That's what I thought but a bit googling suggests if there is sufficient evidence that the subject was intending to steal, such as concealing items, then it's the same thing. That's why I am questioning it. My daughter claims she had the items in her hand in plain sight.
Might be worth asking why they stopped her, if the stuff really was in pockets then they had no doubt clocked her earlier, either way she must have been doing something that caught their attention.
I’d just like to point out that this is 10 years old. 10 years!
😄😄😄😄😄
As the dad of a daughter in a similar situation and with 'previous' good character I'm afraid I'd just accept that for what ever dumb/egged-on reason she did it and be glad the police weren't called. Hopefully it will be enough to stop any more happening. A good discussion/I'm really disappointed etc and move on.
Our little angels aren't always angels especially with 'mates' or just as daft kids. And I know my parents would be shocked at some of the stuff this daft lad got up to!
In my daughter's case she'd been 'pressured' into getting something to show lasses at school who'd been bullying her to some small degree. It was a lips stick and it was in her hand.
I was out getting stuff for her birthday party when I got a call from the police. I actually thought it was a wind up at first, but no. They'd taken her in, belts off, no shoes laces and all that and said she just needed to admit it and say sorry or it'd be court. After a lot of childish obvious BS and some good laying it on heavy by the police it all came out. Never had and issue after that, but the bloody party was cancelled lol!!!
I may sound harsh.
In her hand/in her pocket, making to leave the store and stopped just inside/outside the door, not making any attempt to pay (my guess is make up items?). sounds like she was at it and was caught, now trying to deflect away from what she did. Maybe not her first time either but they always say it is when caught. Honest people don't usually forget to pay. As mentioned above please don't enable her actions. Lots of people nit picking the finer details above.
However, taking a minors picture for circulation....that's not on either.
I hope its a valuable lesson learnt for your daughter and not something for her to laugh about with her friends later.
I work in retail and TBH the number of kids that come in robbing pi$$es me off. They know the police are not interested or take action so carry on. I had to deal with 2 shoplifters again today.
Edit. look up S.C.O.N.E. I have seen apprehensions that occurred at the door (inside) that were successfully prosecuted. I have seen people walk out with items in plain site be apprehended and charged. As I said don't nit pick.
As for the reference ^^^ to items of high value - the alleged offence took place in Primark!
I believe the charge is theft, so can only be applied if you leave the premises. In shops, stuff is placed all over so theft only occurs if you move the goods beyond a boundary, ie store exit.
What you’re thinking of is ‘going equipped’ (to steal). So, if she had a card skimmer or device for removing tags, that would be chargeable.
They would need to prove that she intended to steal (pre-meditation).
I’d just like to point out that this is 10 years old. 10 years!
I think you’ll find it’s timeless 😀
I'm with Andy4D; it's so stupidly common that for it to be the truth would be hard to believe.
Doesn't matter whether it's worth one quid or a hundred.
Like I said, first find the ****ing facts. I wouldn't believe her story until I'd seen the CCTV that proves it either way I'm afraid, and I'd say the same about my kids, they all lie.
As it happens, i often get a custard tart in lidl and put it in my pocket cos i don’t want it to get squashed in the basket. I have no intention of stealing it , they’re 50p and i earn a good wage.
Nobody is so pious as to be blameless.
Big picture......you can twist and turn about if the shop did the right thing as much as you like but it's not really that important or relevant. They are not pressing charges - it ends here.
The more important bit......what is your daughter's perception of your opinion of the incident? Does she think the jury is out, that you have just taken her side of the story or you are on the shops side? I'd caution you not to be be that parent and just take your kids word for it and jump to her defence by default. I've seen too many good kids ruined by these sort of parents. Long and the short of it is that shops don't waste their time for no reason. They also deal with this stuff all the time. And it is not in their interests to put off a potential shopper for life. Sadly, I'd say there is more chance than not that your daughter is guilty. And if that is the case the worst thing you can do as a parent is not make sure this turns into a real life lesson opportunity. If she is guilty she needs to appreciate that she has had a close call. Dad having her back come what may will really not help long term. She needs to be working really hard to persuade you of her innocence. I'd be approaching the store as a concerned parent, without her knowledge, wanting to see the cctv as a concerned parent wanting proof to help your daughter to learn from her mistakes (rather than questioning their professionalism). And if she still brass necks it then she needs to learn the lesson of fessing up to having done wrong and to take the consequence. It's such a crucial life skill. On the flip side if the cctv is not convincing it'll help you to believe her.
I could be wrong don't think a big multinational will let you near the CCTV without the proper GDPR request. We don’t allow parents to rock up and show them all our camera angles/blind spots etc (very useful info for shoplifters!). As said above we don’t tend to stop people for the $hits and giggles because we know the consequences of a false stop and have lots of other things to be doing to make a living rather than deal with this. We also call the police for every minor detained for this very reason, the number of parents that try to blame us when it was their kid in the wrong is incredible. You try and do the right thing and let them off with a warning/no police etc and next thing the parents are in saying xyz! I am fed up trying to be the nice guy and it biting me in the arse so it’s the police every time for me, you are lucky if they didn’t.
Innocent until proven guilty. Lets say she had no intent to steal but is labelled a shoplifter. What then?
You need to have physically left the premises for it to be shoplifting
You don’t.
Innocent until proven guilty. Lets say she had no intent to steal but is labelled a shoplifter. What then?
First find the ****ing facts
Ok, i’ll rephrase that. Either leave without paying, in which case it’s fairly cut n dried theft. Or, the onus is on the crown to prove intent or going equipped if she is still on the premises but not paid.
Innocent until proven guilty. Lets say she had no intent to steal but is labelled a shoplifter. What then?
All very well, do you really want her/the parents to go to court to find out? She may well be officially labelled as one then.
At the moment she's probably had a lucky break if she was, or realised she needs to make sure she doesn't make the same error again.
Not strictly true that you have to leave the premises. It is generally allowed to happen as it more often than not assists in proving the offence of theft, but the actual points to prove are
1. Appropriation
2. Of properrty
3. Belonging to another
4. Dishonestly (putting it in your pocket rather carrying it in your hand)
5. Intention of to permanently deprive
finephilly
Free MemberAs it happens, i often get a custard tart in lidl and put it in my pocket cos i don’t want it to get squashed in the basket. I have no intention of stealing it , they’re 50p and i earn a good wage.
Nobody is so pious as to be blameless
Admit it, you do it for the rush don’t you?!
If she continues to deny it you could try the approach of "your behaviour looks like shoplifting to those who are experienced in spotting shoplifting so needs to change otherwise you'll end up in the same situation again, possibly in a store who prosecute all shoplifters or where the value of goods meets their threshold for prosecution".
You really don't want a criminal conviction as it will affect your life choices / opportunities.
My daughter is 15 and several of the girls in her friendship group shoplift from stores including Primark. Generally cheap tat but still criminal behaviour.
One girl, whose mother is the head of a local primary school, was caught with stuff in her pockets just as she was approaching the exit. Parents involved who supported their child and everything blew over without Police involvement.
They seem to think that their daughter was innocent but my daughter says that this girl had been stealing for several months before being caught.
It does seem to be driven by peer pressure and hopefully will cease once the first member of any group is caught.
Premier Icon
finephilly
Free MemberOk, i’ll rephrase that. Either leave without paying, in which case it’s fairly cut n dried theft. Or, the onus is on the crown to prove intent or going equipped if she is still on the premises but not paid.
The crown? They aren’t pressing charges. She will be labelled as a shoplifter within the realm of Primark and it doesn’t even sound like they’ve banned her, she’ll just be watched like a hawk
I was at the self-scan checkout at Sainsbury's the other day, when they wanted to check my bag and re-scan some items. After they'd done I just walked out of the shop without paying!! I didn't realise until later, and went back and paid. It reminded me of a time I'd someone'd been nabbed for shoplifting in Woolworth's - as described above, teenager egged on by mates. No police but it gave methem a scare I remember a lot of years later!!
Woolworths brings back memories of my crime-ridden boyhood days! I found a bouncy ball on the floor in the Woolworths in Ponterdawe when I was about 10. Pocketed it only for my Dad to find out, take me straight back to the store in question, ask to speak to the manager and then held me in front of him and said ‘my son has something to tell you’.
First and last time I ever tried anything like that…
Yea, i gotta get my kicks somehow. Actually stopped someone shoplifting once and it turned out to be a regional manager training some staff, whoops.
Anyhow it’s always the crown who prosecutes, as we are all (uk) subjects of the queen.
I was looking at this for info:
Procurator Fiscal prosecutes in Scotland.
Anyhow it’s always the crown who prosecutes, as we are all (uk) subjects of the queen.
Erm, no.
it’s always the crown who prosecutes
Generally, but from the OP seems like there is no intent to prosecute, "The store did not contact police". The innocent until proven guilty and 'crown vs' bits become irrelevant in that case. A shop is private property and they can exclude people who they suspect may have tried to rob them in the past if they want.
Seems like the shop is not escalating any more than necessary hence why I suggest that the OP doesn't either. Seems 'possible' that there was intent and even if there wasn't and it was a genuine error then it was a stupid one to learn from.
They cannot circulatw and show the photos of offenders to their staff u less an offender as been convicted.
Againat Data protecrion to do tbis for any age.
What part of GDPR?
In my opinion:
Your daughter was stealing.
& I am 50/50 whether the shop has any intention of circulating the picture, maybe they are just trying to scare her?
^^my take is GDPR states that video surveillance footage that can identify an individual qualifies as personal data and any person who’s image is recorded on cctv has a right to request a copy of their data.
They cannot circulatw and show the photos of offenders to their staff u less an offender as been convicted.
My understanding, is that they should minimise circulating but can supply to staff that need it for purposes of doing their lawful work. To me pointing out that they suspect certain persons of shoplifting and to watch out for them is a legitimate purpose, but IANAL
Whether they can also supply to other shops for the same purposes - is probably dodgy.
And assumes people are being warned they are being monitored - although that can be a grey area, because if warning that monitoring is in place is likely to prevent the crime then it can be covert....but that's more likely to be staff pilfering for example, the purpose of visible and labelled CCTV is to prevent theft in the first place.
First offence?
[img] 
[/img][/url]
Daughter says she forgot she had items and they were in her hand.
Bollocks she did.
She was stopped before leaving the store.
She wasn't shoplifting then. For all the store knows she was about to go "ooh!" and go back to pay.
I mean, bollocks she was, but they can't prove to the contrary.
2. Are they allowed to take a photograph of a minor without parental permission
Yes. There's security cameras all over the place, in public and private. I have a Ring video doorbell. You don't have a right not to be recorded except in certain protected locations.
and then store and circulate that photograph in a database.
Well, then we're into the realms of GDPR. Would you suppose that a supermarket has a legitimate interest in processing data on suspected shoplifters?
I am keen to clear it up as daughter has never been in any kind of trouble before
Don't you remember how puberty works?
Honestly, if I were you I'd be more cross about the lying.
My daughter claims she had the items in her hand in plain sight.
There's an easy way to verify that if they have CCTV footage.
I could be wrong don’t think a big multinational will let you near the CCTV without the proper GDPR request. We don’t allow parents to rock up and show them all our camera angles/blind spots etc (very useful info for shoplifters!).
Sure, but, if the store is arguing "we have proof" then it's on them to either demonstrate that proof or bugger off. Otherwise we're then into the realms of harassment.
Sounds like it's over now, so i wouldn't worry about the Primark element, the photo will just be them making a song and dance to put some scare tactics on for a young girl, retail loss/shrinkage is a big issue, most retail shops have an acceptable level of loss through theft, so you can only imagine how many shoplifters they deal with, if they, or the shop/centre security haven't done anything, then it's over, they don't want to waste time and effort on it, so i'd say you might want to think the same way.
As for what to do, she's a teenager now and there'll be a lot more areas to fight over in the coming years, all you and your wife can do is monitor and support where required, good luck with whatever route you guys go down, if she was with friends, is there parents you can chat to as well, maybe get a bit more of a group monitoring thing going?
Bollocks she did.
There is possibly a more tactful way of making that point.
I understand and sympathise with the disappointment that the OP clearly feels, but I guess the reality is that the staff at Primark are unlikely to want to alienate Primark customers with false accusations.
It makes no business sense and the fact that they obviously don't want to pursue it any further suggests no malice or vindictiveness in their actions.
There is possibly a more tactful way of making that point.
I find that 'tact' is just an excuse to fanny about with florid language rather than getting to the point. (-:
You are correct of course, but it would be naive in the extreme to accept "oh, I forgot" as an excuse and all joking aside if I were the parent I'd be livid that my kid thought that would fly. I have many and varied character flaws but "daft" is not one of them.
13-year old girl. Full of hormones, out with her peers, one of them dares her to stick a pair of knickers in her pocket because "they all do it," it's practically a rite of passage. Next is you / the store frightens them all to death and they never do it again, it's not the Krays origin story.
OP gas gone a little quiet. I know they were after legal advice, but beyond the nitpickers the bulk of the advice as been around how you as a parent should approach your daughter's narrative. Maybe the thread did not take quite the direction they envisaged.
what is your daughter’s perception of your opinion of the incident?
I wanted to post this but a combination of not knowing how to phrase it, and not being a parent stopped me!
There would be nothing worse than coming out of this with her thinking she's got away with it with a gullible parent who will bail her out in future, so perhaps there should be repercussions for 'forgetting', as this removes the arguement over whether it was intentional.
Sure, but, if the store is arguing “we have proof” then it’s on them to either demonstrate that proof or bugger off. Otherwise we’re then into the realms of harassment.
Would it not be private property where access can be denied regardless of proof?
And having staff witnesses probably counts as sufficient evidence to justify it anyway?
Having something in your hand and wandering out is possible. I once picked up 2 CDs to buy in HMV then wandered around browsing other stuff before leaving. I was most of the way home before I realised. I did go back very sheepishly and pay.
^ was about to post similar. Shops have right to refuse entry, and (AFAIK) as long as it's not for protected characteristics that's their choice. If they have 'evidence' (inverted commas because we're not talking about court sized evidence, just enough for them) that someone is nicking stuff then I'm perfectly OK with them using that to advise staff that these people are to be watched or barred entry. Don't nick stuff, then you have nothing to worry about.
It's not some deep state initiative in which future crims are being extensively profiled. It's some security guard that has seen what looks close enough to them to challenge the kid, get some 'ooh I forgot' cock and bull, has prevented the loss for their employer and has dealt with it sensibly to avoid further repercussions and done the kid a favour.
Stepping back a bit, and to the barrack room lawyers - it sounds like in your preferred series of events the kid would have been allowed to leave the shop (despite at least one, even two people with proper knowledge of the law saying that doesn't have to happen, although granted it makes it easier to prove). Then lawfully detained, police called, and CCTV evidence provided. Leading to a 'conviction' (again, probably not in court but dealt with as a police prosecution by post) and a record that'll screw the kid's prospects up.
On balance, as a parent, would I prefer a 'likelihood says, your kid was nicking, got caught and is now banned from my shop, no further questions and goodbye' or full on proceedings. Absolutely the first with the life lesson being 1/ don't break the law; 2/ to avoid being accused of breaking the law don't do stuff that looks like breaking the law.
As frequently happens, theotherjonv sums it up neatly and pragmatically.
Thief!
Odd to put things in your pocket whilst in the shop.
Likely the first time she's been caught. Hopefully it will be a wake up up call and it'll be the last time.
Whats all this going to court shit? When I got caught shop lifting as a kid I just got a police caution and a massive bollicking from my mum and dad. This was 30 odd years ago, so maybe they don't do that any more. Seems a bit much going to court for minor shoplifting though...
massive bollicking from my mum and da
That's probably what the shop are hoping for in this case.
this is not normal behaviour though, I'm trying to picture it, don't you get crumbs in your pocket? Do you take (what you think is) a surreptitious furtive nibble every now & again? 🤣As it happens, i often get a custard tart in lidl and put it in my pocket
Primark? Sorry, but possibly the OP's daughter needs some better guidance about risk:reward and picking higher value targets 😉 .
I think you need a frank and honest discussion with your daughter. And it sounds like the shop has been reasonable. They see this behaviour daily, but this is the first time for yourself. What are the odds? How many times do you think that they have heard the same "explanation"? I took my son back to apologise and pay (he wasn't caught except by me). Within the last 10 years. It comes with the job of being a parent.
Even if they were in her hand, if she was leaving without paying it’s shoplifting.
Actually it isnt. From personal experience i had the same thing happen. Spent a fair bit of time wandering, browsing and went to walk out, completely forgot I was holding a CD.
Stopped right at the door by security, led to back room, cops called.
Cops asked security if the cd was concealed or if i was holding it, they + I said i was holding it, i insisted I'd just forgotten. Cops then told security to let me go.
From what I remember from the conversation between the police and security, they said something about when it goes to court if it wasn't concealed, it was a simple error and they couldn't prove i had intended to steal anything and the court would have dismissed the charge.So the whole thing would have been a waste of the courts time.
As you were buying a cd I'm going to imagine that was decades ago ;-), the link earlier suggests police can now offer a summary prosecution.
Also sounds like police exercised discretion as opposed to it not technically still being shoplifting. Not all offences are prosecuted.
As frequently happens, theotherjonv sums it up neatly and pragmatically.
Agreed. For clarity, I'm not suggesting that she should be sent down for ten years' hard labour. Rather, she needs to understand that she's in the shit and that her explanation (no matter how bogus or genuine it might be) is no excuse.
From personal experience i had the same thing happen. Spent a fair bit of time wandering, browsing and went to walk out, completely forgot I was holding a CD.
It's possible, sure. But it's surely vanishingly unlikely.
Stopped right at the door by security, led to back room, cops called.
I've often wondered what would happen if you just said "no" when stopped by store security. What powers do they actually have? Are they legally allowed to detain you?
anyone can perform an arrest - a Citizen's Arrest - but you have to do it lawfully (although that does include preventing the loss/damage of property). So yes, IANAL but I'd say they are absolutely allowed to detain you, until police arrive.I’ve often wondered what would happen if you just said “no” when stopped by store security. What powers do they actually have? Are they legally allowed to detain you?
Just remembered years ago I was taken back to a shop by my Dad to return something he thought I'd stolen!
He saw I had a new sheath knife (mid 80s in the country) and didn't believe I'd had the money to buy it (I did from little gardening jobs). Man I was angry telling him I'd bought it, but I had the last laugh when the shop said I'd paid for it 🤣
Just remembered years ago I was taken back to a shop by my Dad to return something he thought I’d stolen!
He saw I had a new sheath knife (mid 80s in the country) and didn’t believe I’d had the money to buy it (I did from little gardening jobs). Man I was angry telling him I’d bought it, but I had the last laugh when the shop said I’d paid for it 🤣
If ever there was a story of parenting past that does not run true today! 🙂
Child found with knife and the issue is did they pay for it, not that it's a sodding big knife! Them were the days!
I know! I even bought a pen knife on a school trip to Whitby!
Certainly different times.
Hard as it seems, I think the OP needs to take an unbiased view of this. I have two kids, 11 and 12, so might be in a similar situation in the next few years. I'd absolutely go to war for my kids, and they know that, but they also know that I'll come down on them if required.
I doubt Primark or any other store would make these kind of accusations lightly so my first response would be to get the facts lined up and walk through it all with my son (guilty until proven innocent!). Anything remotely like BS would be called out (I forgot I had it in my hand), and assuming the story fell apart we'd then have a chat about actions and consequences before deciding a punishment.
This kind of thing sets the tone for the future, in terms of both their behaviour and their perception of you as a parent. Teenage years are pretty formative so important to find the right balance. I don't envy you OP.
Its not shoplifting if youre still in the shop.
Dont expect the judge to stop sentencing you because of that, though
Bloody hell, what a bunch of cynics! Teenager automatically a thief and store 'security' assumed to be right 100% of the time!! There's more DM readers here than I thought!
Why is it so hard to believe that the shop got it wrong and that the items were in the teenagers hands?! Not all teenagers steal and not all shop security staff are that good!
This may be a hang up from Virgin records in Oxford Street when I was grabbed by a thicko security staff member and dragged (even at that age I didn't go quietly!) into the manager's office. Had to empty pockets and bags and show receipts for stuff I'd just paid for!! Manager just told me to get out rather than apologising. Only dragging my parents back into the shop got any resolution (£25 to spend in store seemed like Christmas back in those days). Security excuse..."he was picking games (tapes back in those days) off the shelf and reading the labels" - that was his reason for grabbing me!
being a parent to teenage kids makes you cynical. They all lie, no matter what you'd like to believe.
Its not shoplifting if youre still in the shop.
Depends, as I said before there are at least a couple on here for whom this is their daily business and probably know more than the rest of us put together who disagree, at least technically. Still clearly browsing deep in the shop, no it's not theft. Item in pocket and furtively heading for the exit, probably is. Items in a foil lined anti-RFID bag / with a tag remover on their person.... of course letting them leave and then apprehending them outside is more clear cut.
Nick something valuable next time if you're going on the rob.
a shop's security team doesn't just happen to spot someone leaving the store with something in their hand/pocket, as there's far too many people leaving to do that - also chances of them getting from the cctv desk to the front in time is basically zero. They'll spot shifty behavior (and for a first/second time teenager, thats dead easy to spot) around where the items were on the shelf and follow that person to the front. My strong suspicion is the daughter was acting shifty, then nicked something (legally? perhaps not but the store aren't going to press charges for a couple of bracelets so what do they care) and just want the embarassment of parents/bollocking of kids to occur as its the most likely way to succeed.
To add to this ^ I’m also assuming they stopped her just as she was inches from leaving. However this hasn’t been made clear
To add to this ^ I’m also assuming they stopped her just as she was inches from leaving. However this hasn’t been made clear
Teenagers often display levels of pedantry that would be envied in this place. The shop said she was leaving when detained, daughter said she was still in the store - so maybe one step from the door. Shop said items in her pockets, daughter says in her hands - were her hands in her pockets or under her coat?
Its not shoplifting if you're still in the shop.
It can be if you can prove the intention not to pay. I worked in retail management for years and we were taught you must observe the selection, concealment and intention not to pay before you stop someone.
So drug user selecting huge chunk of beef and stuffing in down his trousers was stopped before he left the store and later arrested by police. He had no method of payment on him and was clearly making a B line for the exit.
IMO this case would be about the concealment and intention not to pay. Did the child hide the item and intend not to pay. All a bit academic now.
Be good…
or be good at it.