One evening in April 2021, my client John Culshaw entered a Tesco Extra Store in London to purchase medicine and other items for his 5 year old daughter who was unwell.
This was just a routine shopping trip. John selected a number of items and paid for them at the self service tills. As required by the Coronavirus regulations, John and all other adult shoppers were wearing face masks, and carefully observing the rules.
However, just before John reached the exit from the store, an unmasked security guard approached him and blocked his route, demanding that John hand over his shopping bag and receipt. John was a little taken aback, but immediately complied. The security guard did indeed take John’s bag, which also contained his receipt, but strangely did not bother to examine its contents. Instead, the security guard stated that John had previously stolen from the store. John was shocked, and briefly dropped his mask to show his face in the assumption that the security guard would realise his mistake – but this made no difference. The security guard was then joined by several other members of Tesco staff, who made John empty his pockets whereupon his phones (work and personal), wallet and car keys were seized. He was then escorted through the store and into a back office.
Once in the office, John’s exit was blocked by staff members and he was effectively held prisoner in the small room. John’s jacket was thoroughly searched and John was obliged to empty his pockets and lift his t-shirt to allow the staff to see his waist band.
Understandably, John was objecting to this outrageous treatment and repeatedly told the Tesco staff that he had stolen nothing and asserted that if they thought he was a thief, they should call the Police.
However this offer was ignored, and instead the security guard now used his own mobile phone to take a photograph of John.
All of these events were captured and the store’s CCTV system, and they make disturbing viewing. The Tesco staff had taken John prisoner and were effectively behaving as a private police force – abrogating to themselves the right and prerogatives which actual Police Officers are only entitled to utilise in accordance with the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE 1984) – such as detaining a person in a ‘cell’ searching him, confiscating his belongings and photographing him.
Another member of staff then entered the room and identified himself as the night manager of the store. The manager claimed that he too had encountered John before and accused John of having stolen alcohol. John disputed this (never having met this man, or committed any criminal offence) and again asserted his complete innocence. However, it seemed increasingly certain that the Tesco staff had decided to ‘round’ John up because of a mistaken identification of him with someone else (during a time when all of the population were required to wear masks in public), and not because of any evidence/suspicion he was attempting to ‘shoplift’ on this occasion.
The Tesco staff then left the room and John was locked in.
After several minutes, the Tesco manager returned and handed John a letter, stating that he was banned from the store for 12 months. His possessions were then returned to him and he was allowed to leave.
John, a man of entirely good character, was shocked and deeply upset at the way he had been treated and the accusations with which he had been smeared. He made a complaint to Tesco Head Office the same night and some 2 months later John received a letter offering a lukewarm apology – stating that the incident was as a result of ‘mistaken identity’ and accepting that John should never have been stopped. No mention was made in the letter however, as to what had been done with the photograph which the security guard had taken of John without his consent.
Following my involvement, Tesco quickly admitted liability, confirmed that John’s photograph had been deleted and put forward an offer to settle.
John found the incident traumatic and given that his symptoms were ongoing, I arranged for him to be assessed by a Psychiatrist and for him to then undergo a course of counselling as recommended.
After instituting Court proceedings, I am pleased to confirm that a settlement of just less than £10,000 was agreed together with John’s legal costs.
My client’s name has been changed.
