The High Court awarded Mary McNamara €10,000 in damages after finding that a Dunnes Stores security guard defamed her by accusing her of taking goods and inspecting one of her bags in a busy shopping mall. The award comprised €7,500 for defamation and €2,500 in aggravated damages. The court reduced the basic damages by €2,500 to reflect McNamara’s contribution to the extent of the publication.
The appeal concerned a Circuit Court order made on 8 July 2015, which had awarded McNamara €20,000 plus costs. Dunnes Stores appealed that order. In a judgment delivered on 9 March 2017, Ms Justice Murphy found for McNamara on defamation but rejected her claims of assault, battery and false imprisonment.
The incident happened on 3 May 2008 at the Parkway shopping mall in Limerick. McNamara and her 12-year-old daughter had been shopping for clothes. Security guard Syed Hasnain Alam said he believed he had seen McNamara put store items in a bag. McNamara disputed that account. The store’s internal CCTV footage, which had been requested for preservation soon after the incident, was lost. The mall footage captured only part of the encounter.
The judge found it likely Alam had tapped McNamara on the shoulder to get her attention, but not grabbed her. The court also found that he accused her of taking something from Dunnes Stores, asked her to return to the shop and inspected the contents of her Adams shopping bag in public. It found that he did not inspect her larger handbag. Although he stood in front of McNamara for some seconds, the footage showed enough space for her to walk past him, so the court found no false imprisonment. The shoulder tap did not establish assault or battery.
The court concluded that Alam’s words and conduct conveyed to observers that McNamara was suspected of shoplifting and had committed a criminal offence. Bystanders, including two of her daughter’s school friends, watched the encounter. The judge rejected Dunnes Stores’ defence of qualified privilege, finding that its evidence maintained that McNamara had stolen goods rather than that Alam had acted on a genuine but mistaken belief.
In setting damages, the court found that McNamara could have avoided the public inspection by returning to the store, and reduced the award by €2,500 on that basis. It added €2,500 in aggravated damages, citing the loss of the requested CCTV footage and the defence’s reliance on evidence that effectively branded her a thief.