A Coles supermarket in Perth has found itself at the centre of a peculiar legal battle after a regular customer alleged she was falsely imprisoned not once, but twice, while shopping at the same store.

The case, which has sparked a flurry of media attention, centred around an incident where the woman claimed she was unjustly detained by Coles staff while purchasing bread and newspaper.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, alleged that she was prevented from leaving the Coles supermarket at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth's northern suburbs on two separate occasions.

The reason? She was accused of not paying for a newspaper that she insisted she had purchased at a different store.

A woman alleges that she was 'falsely imprisoned' by Coles staff. Image source: Shutterstock.

This first incident occurred in March 2020 when the woman entered Coles supermarket with a copy of The West Australian newspaper she had bought at a nearby newsagent.

After picking up bread and four slices of polony (known as devon in most states), she proceeded to the express checkout to pay her $2.80 bill.

However, a sales assistant asked her to pay for the newspaper as well, leading to a heated dispute.

The woman alleged that a Coles employee threatened to call the police and that three other staff members blocked her exit from the store.

She further claimed that a security guard pushed a shopping trolley towards her, causing her to lose her footing and become ‘so fearful that she wet herself’.

The security guard, however, testified and gave evidence that it was the woman who had hit him with the trolley.

'I believe she was a little upset, and she tried to ram me with the trolley straight to my belly,' he said.

The staff reportedly told the woman she could leave but she insisted on waiting for the police, who then placed her under arrest when they arrived and let her go without charge.

Despite alleging that she had suffered trauma during the incident, the woman continued to shop at the supermarket, including the day after her one-year ban ended.

A similar incident occurred in May 2021 when the same woman was (again) accused of not paying for a newspaper she had purchased elsewhere.

'I'm informed that you haven't paid for the paper before,' a staff member said.

To which she responded: 'Well, you have been misinformed.'

On both occasions, however, the newsagent confirmed the woman had bought the newspaper from his shop.

The woman, who claims to hold three law degrees and a doctorate, represented herself in the Western Australian District Court. She sued Coles and MCS Security, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment.

However, Judge Linda Black found the woman's evidence to be dishonest and 'bizarre'.

She noted that the woman's decision to continue shopping at the same Coles supermarket, despite living an hour's drive away and having other supermarket options closer to home, damaged her credibility.

'I find that the plaintiff is not a credible witness,' Judge Black said. 'She is neither honest nor reliable.'

She also claimed that the woman continued to dispute evidence as seen on the body-worn camera footage despite her 'clearly mistaken (or dishonest) recollection'.

'The fact that the plaintiff asserted she suffered significant physical and mental consequences from what happened, according to her, on the first occasion is utterly irreconcilable with her decision to continue to go to the Coles supermarket in question, including during a period she was banned from doing so.'

'Her refusal to acknowledge the availability and feasibility of attending other Coles supermarkets or other supermarkets such as Woolworths, ALDI and IGA damaged her credibility.'

'This is particularly so in circumstances where she lived a very long way from the Coles supermarket in question.'

Judge Black also dismissed the woman's claim of wetting herself, stating that the woman appeared confident and robust in the body-worn camera footage.

'She does not appear injured nor distressed in any way, and she does not suggest she has wet herself,' the judge found.

'By contrast, she appears confident, robust, keen to lecture others on the law and deriving pleasure from the circumstances in which she had an opportunity to assert her rights.'

The judge concluded that the woman was not prevented from leaving the supermarket and dismissed her claim in its entirety.

The woman was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company's costs.

Key Takeaways

• A woman claimed she was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by staff members on two separate occasions.
• These incidents both happened at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth when the shopper was stopped and questioned about a newspaper she bought from a different store.
• Despite claims of being frightened and struck with a trolley, the shop-goer visited the supermarket multiple times, even after being banned for a year.
• The judge overseeing the case found the plaintiff to be untrustworthy and dishonest, as her statements did not align with video evidence, and disregarded her claims.
• The woman’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company’s costs.

What are your thoughts on this case, members? Let us know in the comments below!

 

[SandyBolay]

A Coles supermarket in Perth has found itself at the centre of a peculiar legal battle after a regular customer alleged she was falsely imprisoned not once, but twice, while shopping at the same store.

The case, which has sparked a flurry of media attention, centred around an incident where the woman claimed she was unjustly detained by Coles staff while purchasing bread and newspaper.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, alleged that she was prevented from leaving the Coles supermarket at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth's northern suburbs on two separate occasions.

The reason? She was accused of not paying for a newspaper that she insisted she had purchased at a different store.

View attachment 35981

A woman alleges that she was 'falsely imprisoned' by Coles staff. Image source: Shutterstock.

This first incident occurred in March 2020 when the woman entered Coles supermarket with a copy of The West Australian newspaper she had bought at a nearby newsagent.

After picking up bread and four slices of polony (known as devon in most states), she proceeded to the express checkout to pay her $2.80 bill.

However, a sales assistant asked her to pay for the newspaper as well, leading to a heated dispute.

The woman alleged that a Coles employee threatened to call the police and that three other staff members blocked her exit from the store.

She further claimed that a security guard pushed a shopping trolley towards her, causing her to lose her footing and become ‘so fearful that she wet herself’.

The security guard, however, testified and gave evidence that it was the woman who had hit him with the trolley.

'I believe she was a little upset, and she tried to ram me with the trolley straight to my belly,' he said.

The staff reportedly told the woman she could leave but she insisted on waiting for the police, who then placed her under arrest when they arrived and let her go without charge.

Despite alleging that she had suffered trauma during the incident, the woman continued to shop at the supermarket, including the day after her one-year ban ended.

A similar incident occurred in May 2021 when the same woman was (again) accused of not paying for a newspaper she had purchased elsewhere.

'I'm informed that you haven't paid for the paper before,' a staff member said.

To which she responded: 'Well, you have been misinformed.'

On both occasions, however, the newsagent confirmed the woman had bought the newspaper from his shop.

The woman, who claims to hold three law degrees and a doctorate, represented herself in the Western Australian District Court. She sued Coles and MCS Security, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment.

However, Judge Linda Black found the woman's evidence to be dishonest and 'bizarre'.

She noted that the woman's decision to continue shopping at the same Coles supermarket, despite living an hour's drive away and having other supermarket options closer to home, damaged her credibility.

'I find that the plaintiff is not a credible witness,' Judge Black said. 'She is neither honest nor reliable.'

She also claimed that the woman continued to dispute evidence as seen on the body-worn camera footage despite her 'clearly mistaken (or dishonest) recollection'.

'The fact that the plaintiff asserted she suffered significant physical and mental consequences from what happened, according to her, on the first occasion is utterly irreconcilable with her decision to continue to go to the Coles supermarket in question, including during a period she was banned from doing so.'

'Her refusal to acknowledge the availability and feasibility of attending other Coles supermarkets or other supermarkets such as Woolworths, ALDI and IGA damaged her credibility.'

'This is particularly so in circumstances where she lived a very long way from the Coles supermarket in question.'

Judge Black also dismissed the woman's claim of wetting herself, stating that the woman appeared confident and robust in the body-worn camera footage.

'She does not appear injured nor distressed in any way, and she does not suggest she has wet herself,' the judge found.

'By contrast, she appears confident, robust, keen to lecture others on the law and deriving pleasure from the circumstances in which she had an opportunity to assert her rights.'

The judge concluded that the woman was not prevented from leaving the supermarket and dismissed her claim in its entirety.

The woman was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company's costs.

Key Takeaways

• A woman claimed she was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by staff members on two separate occasions.
• These incidents both happened at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth when the shopper was stopped and questioned about a newspaper she bought from a different store.
• Despite claims of being frightened and struck with a trolley, the shop-goer visited the supermarket multiple times, even after being banned for a year.
• The judge overseeing the case found the plaintiff to be untrustworthy and dishonest, as her statements did not align with video evidence, and disregarded her claims.
• The woman’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company’s costs.

What are your thoughts on this case, members? Let us know in the comments below!

I personally think she should be jailed for 10 years without parole, not for the crime but for taking the matter to court and blatantly lying.

 

[Fernie]

A Coles supermarket in Perth has found itself at the centre of a peculiar legal battle after a regular customer alleged she was falsely imprisoned not once, but twice, while shopping at the same store.

The case, which has sparked a flurry of media attention, centred around an incident where the woman claimed she was unjustly detained by Coles staff while purchasing bread and newspaper.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, alleged that she was prevented from leaving the Coles supermarket at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth's northern suburbs on two separate occasions.

The reason? She was accused of not paying for a newspaper that she insisted she had purchased at a different store.

View attachment 35981

A woman alleges that she was 'falsely imprisoned' by Coles staff. Image source: Shutterstock.

This first incident occurred in March 2020 when the woman entered Coles supermarket with a copy of The West Australian newspaper she had bought at a nearby newsagent.

After picking up bread and four slices of polony (known as devon in most states), she proceeded to the express checkout to pay her $2.80 bill.

However, a sales assistant asked her to pay for the newspaper as well, leading to a heated dispute.

The woman alleged that a Coles employee threatened to call the police and that three other staff members blocked her exit from the store.

She further claimed that a security guard pushed a shopping trolley towards her, causing her to lose her footing and become ‘so fearful that she wet herself’.

The security guard, however, testified and gave evidence that it was the woman who had hit him with the trolley.

'I believe she was a little upset, and she tried to ram me with the trolley straight to my belly,' he said.

The staff reportedly told the woman she could leave but she insisted on waiting for the police, who then placed her under arrest when they arrived and let her go without charge.

Despite alleging that she had suffered trauma during the incident, the woman continued to shop at the supermarket, including the day after her one-year ban ended.

A similar incident occurred in May 2021 when the same woman was (again) accused of not paying for a newspaper she had purchased elsewhere.

'I'm informed that you haven't paid for the paper before,' a staff member said.

To which she responded: 'Well, you have been misinformed.'

On both occasions, however, the newsagent confirmed the woman had bought the newspaper from his shop.

The woman, who claims to hold three law degrees and a doctorate, represented herself in the Western Australian District Court. She sued Coles and MCS Security, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment.

However, Judge Linda Black found the woman's evidence to be dishonest and 'bizarre'.

She noted that the woman's decision to continue shopping at the same Coles supermarket, despite living an hour's drive away and having other supermarket options closer to home, damaged her credibility.

'I find that the plaintiff is not a credible witness,' Judge Black said. 'She is neither honest nor reliable.'

She also claimed that the woman continued to dispute evidence as seen on the body-worn camera footage despite her 'clearly mistaken (or dishonest) recollection'.

'The fact that the plaintiff asserted she suffered significant physical and mental consequences from what happened, according to her, on the first occasion is utterly irreconcilable with her decision to continue to go to the Coles supermarket in question, including during a period she was banned from doing so.'

'Her refusal to acknowledge the availability and feasibility of attending other Coles supermarkets or other supermarkets such as Woolworths, ALDI and IGA damaged her credibility.'

'This is particularly so in circumstances where she lived a very long way from the Coles supermarket in question.'

Judge Black also dismissed the woman's claim of wetting herself, stating that the woman appeared confident and robust in the body-worn camera footage.

'She does not appear injured nor distressed in any way, and she does not suggest she has wet herself,' the judge found.

'By contrast, she appears confident, robust, keen to lecture others on the law and deriving pleasure from the circumstances in which she had an opportunity to assert her rights.'

The judge concluded that the woman was not prevented from leaving the supermarket and dismissed her claim in its entirety.

The woman was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company's costs.

Key Takeaways

• A woman claimed she was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by staff members on two separate occasions.
• These incidents both happened at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth when the shopper was stopped and questioned about a newspaper she bought from a different store.
• Despite claims of being frightened and struck with a trolley, the shop-goer visited the supermarket multiple times, even after being banned for a year.
• The judge overseeing the case found the plaintiff to be untrustworthy and dishonest, as her statements did not align with video evidence, and disregarded her claims.
• The woman’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company’s costs.

What are your thoughts on this case, members? Let us know in the comments below!

I cannot understand if the news agency said she had bought the paper there on both occasions she was still seen as guilty.

 

[Wayneo]

Strange and the second time bought the newspaper again before going to the supermarket wouldn’t you think I’ll go to the supermarket first or wouldn’t you buy the paper there instead.

 

[Suzanne rose]

Who would go back to the same supermarket that did this to you . If this happened the first time exactly how she said it then This would have scared me for a very long time and I definitely wouldn't have gone back .

There's more to this story .

 

[ElizabethL]

Or

 

[BJM]

A Coles supermarket in Perth has found itself at the centre of a peculiar legal battle after a regular customer alleged she was falsely imprisoned not once, but twice, while shopping at the same store.

The case, which has sparked a flurry of media attention, centred around an incident where the woman claimed she was unjustly detained by Coles staff while purchasing bread and newspaper.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, alleged that she was prevented from leaving the Coles supermarket at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth's northern suburbs on two separate occasions.

The reason? She was accused of not paying for a newspaper that she insisted she had purchased at a different store.

View attachment 35981

A woman alleges that she was 'falsely imprisoned' by Coles staff. Image source: Shutterstock.

This first incident occurred in March 2020 when the woman entered Coles supermarket with a copy of The West Australian newspaper she had bought at a nearby newsagent.

After picking up bread and four slices of polony (known as devon in most states), she proceeded to the express checkout to pay her $2.80 bill.

However, a sales assistant asked her to pay for the newspaper as well, leading to a heated dispute.

The woman alleged that a Coles employee threatened to call the police and that three other staff members blocked her exit from the store.

She further claimed that a security guard pushed a shopping trolley towards her, causing her to lose her footing and become ‘so fearful that she wet herself’.

The security guard, however, testified and gave evidence that it was the woman who had hit him with the trolley.

'I believe she was a little upset, and she tried to ram me with the trolley straight to my belly,' he said.

The staff reportedly told the woman she could leave but she insisted on waiting for the police, who then placed her under arrest when they arrived and let her go without charge.

Despite alleging that she had suffered trauma during the incident, the woman continued to shop at the supermarket, including the day after her one-year ban ended.

A similar incident occurred in May 2021 when the same woman was (again) accused of not paying for a newspaper she had purchased elsewhere.

'I'm informed that you haven't paid for the paper before,' a staff member said.

To which she responded: 'Well, you have been misinformed.'

On both occasions, however, the newsagent confirmed the woman had bought the newspaper from his shop.

The woman, who claims to hold three law degrees and a doctorate, represented herself in the Western Australian District Court. She sued Coles and MCS Security, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment.

However, Judge Linda Black found the woman's evidence to be dishonest and 'bizarre'.

She noted that the woman's decision to continue shopping at the same Coles supermarket, despite living an hour's drive away and having other supermarket options closer to home, damaged her credibility.

'I find that the plaintiff is not a credible witness,' Judge Black said. 'She is neither honest nor reliable.'

She also claimed that the woman continued to dispute evidence as seen on the body-worn camera footage despite her 'clearly mistaken (or dishonest) recollection'.

'The fact that the plaintiff asserted she suffered significant physical and mental consequences from what happened, according to her, on the first occasion is utterly irreconcilable with her decision to continue to go to the Coles supermarket in question, including during a period she was banned from doing so.'

'Her refusal to acknowledge the availability and feasibility of attending other Coles supermarkets or other supermarkets such as Woolworths, ALDI and IGA damaged her credibility.'

'This is particularly so in circumstances where she lived a very long way from the Coles supermarket in question.'

Judge Black also dismissed the woman's claim of wetting herself, stating that the woman appeared confident and robust in the body-worn camera footage.

'She does not appear injured nor distressed in any way, and she does not suggest she has wet herself,' the judge found.

'By contrast, she appears confident, robust, keen to lecture others on the law and deriving pleasure from the circumstances in which she had an opportunity to assert her rights.'

The judge concluded that the woman was not prevented from leaving the supermarket and dismissed her claim in its entirety.

The woman was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company's costs.

Key Takeaways

• A woman claimed she was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by staff members on two separate occasions.
• These incidents both happened at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth when the shopper was stopped and questioned about a newspaper she bought from a different store.
• Despite claims of being frightened and struck with a trolley, the shop-goer visited the supermarket multiple times, even after being banned for a year.
• The judge overseeing the case found the plaintiff to be untrustworthy and dishonest, as her statements did not align with video evidence, and disregarded her claims.
• The woman’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company’s costs.

What are your thoughts on this case, members? Let us know in the comments below!

No mention of any security footage - this would be interesting to see, if any

 

[NotNats]

A Coles supermarket in Perth has found itself at the centre of a peculiar legal battle after a regular customer alleged she was falsely imprisoned not once, but twice, while shopping at the same store.

The case, which has sparked a flurry of media attention, centred around an incident where the woman claimed she was unjustly detained by Coles staff while purchasing bread and newspaper.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, alleged that she was prevented from leaving the Coles supermarket at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth's northern suburbs on two separate occasions.

The reason? She was accused of not paying for a newspaper that she insisted she had purchased at a different store.

View attachment 35981

A woman alleges that she was 'falsely imprisoned' by Coles staff. Image source: Shutterstock.

This first incident occurred in March 2020 when the woman entered Coles supermarket with a copy of The West Australian newspaper she had bought at a nearby newsagent.

After picking up bread and four slices of polony (known as devon in most states), she proceeded to the express checkout to pay her $2.80 bill.

However, a sales assistant asked her to pay for the newspaper as well, leading to a heated dispute.

The woman alleged that a Coles employee threatened to call the police and that three other staff members blocked her exit from the store.

She further claimed that a security guard pushed a shopping trolley towards her, causing her to lose her footing and become ‘so fearful that she wet herself’.

The security guard, however, testified and gave evidence that it was the woman who had hit him with the trolley.

'I believe she was a little upset, and she tried to ram me with the trolley straight to my belly,' he said.

The staff reportedly told the woman she could leave but she insisted on waiting for the police, who then placed her under arrest when they arrived and let her go without charge.

Despite alleging that she had suffered trauma during the incident, the woman continued to shop at the supermarket, including the day after her one-year ban ended.

A similar incident occurred in May 2021 when the same woman was (again) accused of not paying for a newspaper she had purchased elsewhere.

'I'm informed that you haven't paid for the paper before,' a staff member said.

To which she responded: 'Well, you have been misinformed.'

On both occasions, however, the newsagent confirmed the woman had bought the newspaper from his shop.

The woman, who claims to hold three law degrees and a doctorate, represented herself in the Western Australian District Court. She sued Coles and MCS Security, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment.

However, Judge Linda Black found the woman's evidence to be dishonest and 'bizarre'.

She noted that the woman's decision to continue shopping at the same Coles supermarket, despite living an hour's drive away and having other supermarket options closer to home, damaged her credibility.

'I find that the plaintiff is not a credible witness,' Judge Black said. 'She is neither honest nor reliable.'

She also claimed that the woman continued to dispute evidence as seen on the body-worn camera footage despite her 'clearly mistaken (or dishonest) recollection'.

'The fact that the plaintiff asserted she suffered significant physical and mental consequences from what happened, according to her, on the first occasion is utterly irreconcilable with her decision to continue to go to the Coles supermarket in question, including during a period she was banned from doing so.'

'Her refusal to acknowledge the availability and feasibility of attending other Coles supermarkets or other supermarkets such as Woolworths, ALDI and IGA damaged her credibility.'

'This is particularly so in circumstances where she lived a very long way from the Coles supermarket in question.'

Judge Black also dismissed the woman's claim of wetting herself, stating that the woman appeared confident and robust in the body-worn camera footage.

'She does not appear injured nor distressed in any way, and she does not suggest she has wet herself,' the judge found.

'By contrast, she appears confident, robust, keen to lecture others on the law and deriving pleasure from the circumstances in which she had an opportunity to assert her rights.'

The judge concluded that the woman was not prevented from leaving the supermarket and dismissed her claim in its entirety.

The woman was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company's costs.

Key Takeaways

• A woman claimed she was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by staff members on two separate occasions.
• These incidents both happened at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth when the shopper was stopped and questioned about a newspaper she bought from a different store.
• Despite claims of being frightened and struck with a trolley, the shop-goer visited the supermarket multiple times, even after being banned for a year.
• The judge overseeing the case found the plaintiff to be untrustworthy and dishonest, as her statements did not align with video evidence, and disregarded her claims.
• The woman’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company’s costs.

What are your thoughts on this case, members? Let us know in the comments below!

She was just trying to make a quick buck - I know one thing, she not a trust worthy Lawyer.

 

[mylittletibbies]

No mention of any security footage - this would be interesting to see, if any

Obviously there was some otherwise how could the judge make the summations she did eg she didn't appear to have wet herself, also comments about the woman's attitude during the incident.
Think this woman is a smart arse, trying to show off her smarts and her so called law degree. Backfired spectacularly .

 

[bschulze]

No mention of any security footage - this would be interesting to see, if any

i would say that beak that passed that judgement against that woman is well and truly in coles back pocket

 

[Penny4]

It's a bit strange why she would drive one hour to attend that Coles store, when she had other supermarkets locally nearby. As others have mentioned, there must be a story behind why she did it.

 

[mylittletibbies]

i would say that beak that passed that judgement against that woman is well and truly in coles back pocket

Don't you people read the full story.
If this woman was so bloody traumatized by the incident why on earth did she go so far out of her way to go back there again and do the exact same thing.
Very unbelievable story.
You obviously have something against judges to make such a stupid comment
Sounds like something my drug addled son would say.

 

[cheviegirl34]

A Coles supermarket in Perth has found itself at the centre of a peculiar legal battle after a regular customer alleged she was falsely imprisoned not once, but twice, while shopping at the same store.

The case, which has sparked a flurry of media attention, centred around an incident where the woman claimed she was unjustly detained by Coles staff while purchasing bread and newspaper.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, alleged that she was prevented from leaving the Coles supermarket at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth's northern suburbs on two separate occasions.

The reason? She was accused of not paying for a newspaper that she insisted she had purchased at a different store.

View attachment 35981

A woman alleges that she was 'falsely imprisoned' by Coles staff. Image source: Shutterstock.

This first incident occurred in March 2020 when the woman entered Coles supermarket with a copy of The West Australian newspaper she had bought at a nearby newsagent.

After picking up bread and four slices of polony (known as devon in most states), she proceeded to the express checkout to pay her $2.80 bill.

However, a sales assistant asked her to pay for the newspaper as well, leading to a heated dispute.

The woman alleged that a Coles employee threatened to call the police and that three other staff members blocked her exit from the store.

She further claimed that a security guard pushed a shopping trolley towards her, causing her to lose her footing and become ‘so fearful that she wet herself’.

The security guard, however, testified and gave evidence that it was the woman who had hit him with the trolley.

'I believe she was a little upset, and she tried to ram me with the trolley straight to my belly,' he said.

The staff reportedly told the woman she could leave but she insisted on waiting for the police, who then placed her under arrest when they arrived and let her go without charge.

Despite alleging that she had suffered trauma during the incident, the woman continued to shop at the supermarket, including the day after her one-year ban ended.

A similar incident occurred in May 2021 when the same woman was (again) accused of not paying for a newspaper she had purchased elsewhere.

'I'm informed that you haven't paid for the paper before,' a staff member said.

To which she responded: 'Well, you have been misinformed.'

On both occasions, however, the newsagent confirmed the woman had bought the newspaper from his shop.

The woman, who claims to hold three law degrees and a doctorate, represented herself in the Western Australian District Court. She sued Coles and MCS Security, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment.

However, Judge Linda Black found the woman's evidence to be dishonest and 'bizarre'.

She noted that the woman's decision to continue shopping at the same Coles supermarket, despite living an hour's drive away and having other supermarket options closer to home, damaged her credibility.

'I find that the plaintiff is not a credible witness,' Judge Black said. 'She is neither honest nor reliable.'

She also claimed that the woman continued to dispute evidence as seen on the body-worn camera footage despite her 'clearly mistaken (or dishonest) recollection'.

'The fact that the plaintiff asserted she suffered significant physical and mental consequences from what happened, according to her, on the first occasion is utterly irreconcilable with her decision to continue to go to the Coles supermarket in question, including during a period she was banned from doing so.'

'Her refusal to acknowledge the availability and feasibility of attending other Coles supermarkets or other supermarkets such as Woolworths, ALDI and IGA damaged her credibility.'

'This is particularly so in circumstances where she lived a very long way from the Coles supermarket in question.'

Judge Black also dismissed the woman's claim of wetting herself, stating that the woman appeared confident and robust in the body-worn camera footage.

'She does not appear injured nor distressed in any way, and she does not suggest she has wet herself,' the judge found.

'By contrast, she appears confident, robust, keen to lecture others on the law and deriving pleasure from the circumstances in which she had an opportunity to assert her rights.'

The judge concluded that the woman was not prevented from leaving the supermarket and dismissed her claim in its entirety.

The woman was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company's costs.

Key Takeaways

• A woman claimed she was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by staff members on two separate occasions.
• These incidents both happened at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth when the shopper was stopped and questioned about a newspaper she bought from a different store.
• Despite claims of being frightened and struck with a trolley, the shop-goer visited the supermarket multiple times, even after being banned for a year.
• The judge overseeing the case found the plaintiff to be untrustworthy and dishonest, as her statements did not align with video evidence, and disregarded her claims.
• The woman’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company’s costs.

What are your thoughts on this case, members? Let us know in the comments below!

I think it is disgusting. Why should she pay? Coles did the wrong thing. We shop at Coles & go to one further from where we live to another one, simply because we prefer that shopping centre. Why was she fined when she had paid for the newspaper! All this over a couple of dollars. Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!

 

[Macarj]

It's a bit strange why she would drive one hour to attend that Coles store, when she had other supermarkets locally nearby. As others have mentioned, there must be a story behind why she did it.

Maybe the ones near her are small although she only bought bread

 

[maxesmum]

Sounds like a Karen got her just desserts. She went looking for a fight and lost

 

[Penny4]

Maybe the ones near her are small although she only bought bread

She was prone to giving false statements compared to the video footage, so who knows what her real story is.

 

[Time to chat]

A Coles supermarket in Perth has found itself at the centre of a peculiar legal battle after a regular customer alleged she was falsely imprisoned not once, but twice, while shopping at the same store.

The case, which has sparked a flurry of media attention, centred around an incident where the woman claimed she was unjustly detained by Coles staff while purchasing bread and newspaper.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, alleged that she was prevented from leaving the Coles supermarket at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth's northern suburbs on two separate occasions.

The reason? She was accused of not paying for a newspaper that she insisted she had purchased at a different store.

View attachment 35981

A woman alleges that she was 'falsely imprisoned' by Coles staff. Image source: Shutterstock.

This first incident occurred in March 2020 when the woman entered Coles supermarket with a copy of The West Australian newspaper she had bought at a nearby newsagent.

After picking up bread and four slices of polony (known as devon in most states), she proceeded to the express checkout to pay her $2.80 bill.

However, a sales assistant asked her to pay for the newspaper as well, leading to a heated dispute.

The woman alleged that a Coles employee threatened to call the police and that three other staff members blocked her exit from the store.

She further claimed that a security guard pushed a shopping trolley towards her, causing her to lose her footing and become ‘so fearful that she wet herself’.

The security guard, however, testified and gave evidence that it was the woman who had hit him with the trolley.

'I believe she was a little upset, and she tried to ram me with the trolley straight to my belly,' he said.

The staff reportedly told the woman she could leave but she insisted on waiting for the police, who then placed her under arrest when they arrived and let her go without charge.

Despite alleging that she had suffered trauma during the incident, the woman continued to shop at the supermarket, including the day after her one-year ban ended.

A similar incident occurred in May 2021 when the same woman was (again) accused of not paying for a newspaper she had purchased elsewhere.

'I'm informed that you haven't paid for the paper before,' a staff member said.

To which she responded: 'Well, you have been misinformed.'

On both occasions, however, the newsagent confirmed the woman had bought the newspaper from his shop.

The woman, who claims to hold three law degrees and a doctorate, represented herself in the Western Australian District Court. She sued Coles and MCS Security, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment.

However, Judge Linda Black found the woman's evidence to be dishonest and 'bizarre'.

She noted that the woman's decision to continue shopping at the same Coles supermarket, despite living an hour's drive away and having other supermarket options closer to home, damaged her credibility.

'I find that the plaintiff is not a credible witness,' Judge Black said. 'She is neither honest nor reliable.'

She also claimed that the woman continued to dispute evidence as seen on the body-worn camera footage despite her 'clearly mistaken (or dishonest) recollection'.

'The fact that the plaintiff asserted she suffered significant physical and mental consequences from what happened, according to her, on the first occasion is utterly irreconcilable with her decision to continue to go to the Coles supermarket in question, including during a period she was banned from doing so.'

'Her refusal to acknowledge the availability and feasibility of attending other Coles supermarkets or other supermarkets such as Woolworths, ALDI and IGA damaged her credibility.'

'This is particularly so in circumstances where she lived a very long way from the Coles supermarket in question.'

Judge Black also dismissed the woman's claim of wetting herself, stating that the woman appeared confident and robust in the body-worn camera footage.

'She does not appear injured nor distressed in any way, and she does not suggest she has wet herself,' the judge found.

'By contrast, she appears confident, robust, keen to lecture others on the law and deriving pleasure from the circumstances in which she had an opportunity to assert her rights.'

The judge concluded that the woman was not prevented from leaving the supermarket and dismissed her claim in its entirety.

The woman was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company's costs.

Key Takeaways

• A woman claimed she was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by staff members on two separate occasions.
• These incidents both happened at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth when the shopper was stopped and questioned about a newspaper she bought from a different store.
• Despite claims of being frightened and struck with a trolley, the shop-goer visited the supermarket multiple times, even after being banned for a year.
• The judge overseeing the case found the plaintiff to be untrustworthy and dishonest, as her statements did not align with video evidence, and disregarded her claims.
• The woman’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company’s costs.

What are your thoughts on this case, members? Let us know in the comments below!

If I enter any supermarket or shop with purchases from somewhere else I always declare the goods BEFORE ENTERING the premises. I think this woman was itching for a fight and got one. What a waste of court time.

 

[Loubeauxarts]

Clearly an opportunist with, presumably, some education trying to make a quick buck through litigation. We are perilously close to becoming the 51st state of the USA.
Thank the Gods that she got slammed with the costs. She'll think twice before doing that again

 

[gordon1940]

i would say that beak that passed that judgement against that woman is well and truly in coles back pocket

WHAT!!!!!!!!

 

[Annna]

I personally think she should be jailed for 10 years without parole, not for the crime but for taking the matter to court and blatantly lying.

This is a civil case. No jail but costs would be considerable.