Theft (2)
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
What prosecution can inolve
by Les Oldridge, TEng (CEI), MIMI, AMIRTE 'LAST WEEK I discussed an employer's powers of arrest, the right to search a person suspected of stealing and the powers of the police in dealing with dishonest employees. There are other factors to be considered when dealing with thieves.
Suppose you have strong suspicions that a person is leaving your depot with stolen property in his possession. Should you tackle him about it before he leaves your premises or should you wait until he is outside ?
In order to obtain a conviction for theft the court must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused took the property with the intention of "permanently depriving the owner thereof." In Regina v MacPherson and others a man and two women went on a shoplifting expedition in a supermarket. One woman surreptitiously took two bottles of ,whisky and put them in her shopping bag; the manager saw her but she denied acting dishonestly but was prosecuted and found guilty. She appealed and claimed that at least until she had passed the check out counter she could not be found guilty of theft.
• The court of appeal held that when she took the bottles and put them in her shopping basket she intended " permarently to deprive the owner" and this made the offence complete and the appeal was dismissed. It follows that when goods are taken from their proper place and at the time they are taken there was an intention on the part of the person moving them to permanently deprive the owner of the goods then there is the criminal offence of theft. In practice it is wise to let the thief travel far enough for him to be unable to say: "I did not intend to steal the goods, I was going to pay for them."
Having caught your thief are you bound to prosecute him ? If you have called the police you do not have much choice: they will decide whether or not to prosecute; there is little you can do about it. If the police are not involved then you can make up your own mind ; if you want to prosecute you can call the police, put the facts before them and let them get on with the prosecution. Much will depend on the seriousness of the crime : how much money is involved ? What is the valut of the goods stolen ? Wha restitution is offered and who i! the injured party ?
Where small amounts o money are concerned or when the value of the goods is smal there is a tendency to dismis: the thief but not to inform thi police. This saves a lot o trouble, publicity, and time wasting attendance at courl But, on the other hand, on leaves the thief free to continui his activities elsewhere. Thi decision what action to take i. up to each individual employer', sense of what is right in eacl particular case.
Sometimes the police declin to prosecute an offender. Thi: may be because they feel du evidence is not strong enougl or that their policy is not ti prosecute for petty theft o shoplifting. In these cases thi loser himself will be invited ti prosecute the thief while th police give their assistance. I must be remembered that if th offender is found not guilty an it can be proved that the prose cution was a malicious one, till person bringing the charge coull be sued by the defendant.
If you suspect that tu employee has stolen somethitu and you decide to interview hin concerning the theft it is pruden to have someone else with you If the person then makes a con fession this will be corroborate and the second person at th interview will be able to confirn that you did nothing imprope and that the admission of gull was obtained fairly. My owl view is that if your suspicion are strong enough to warran interviewing an employee would be far better to let th police deal with the affair. The: are specialists at this sort o interview and are far mor likely to be successful in deter mining the truth.