The High Court ruled that a theft charge sheet does not have to state a company’s exact registered name if it identifies the owner with reasonable clarity and is not misleading.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the judgment on 5 March 2014 in a case stated by the District Court. The case arose from charges against Sarah Johnston and Dean Gibbons, who were accused of stealing cosmetics valued at €195 from a Boots store at The Square, Tallaght, on 10 July 2012. They pleaded not guilty and were before the Tallaght District Court; the High Court was not deciding their guilt.
At the District Court hearing, a security officer testified that the two had concealed items in their clothes, left without paying, and were brought back to the store, where the goods were recovered. He said neither had permission to take them. He also said he worked for a separate security company, not Boots.
A Boots manager, Mary Shun, testified that she had responsibility for stock and that the accused had not been given permission to take it. She produced a certificate of incorporation for Boots Retail (Ireland) Ltd and said that was the same company referred to in the charge sheet as “The Manager, Boots, Level 2, The Square, Tallaght, Dublin 24”. She also gave evidence that the recovered goods belonged to the company.
After the prosecution closed its case, the defence sought a direction, arguing in part that the owner named on the charge sheet differed from the company name on the incorporation certificate. The District Judge refused the application, found there was a case to answer, and referred three questions to the High Court. The referral concerned the legal sufficiency of the charge description and ownership evidence; it was not a trial of the theft allegation.
Mr Justice Hogan distinguished the case from an earlier decision, DPP (Breen) v Valentine. There, he said, no evidence had been given that the named retail outlet existed as a legal entity or owned the goods. In this case, the manager’s evidence connected the trading name on the charge sheet to the incorporated company and identified it as the owner.
The judge answered all three questions in the negative, subject to the condition that the name in the charge sheet gives reasonable information about the owner’s identity. He said the informal trading name can suffice where it is commonly known and the description is not misleading. The judgment resolved those questions of law; it did not determine whether Johnston or Gibbons committed theft.