In pursuit of a thief

We seem to have a lot of hippie civil rights bush lawyers posting here.

If the bloke’s offended I’m sure he address it to rossau.

In my mind he’s guilty of everything for wearing sunglasses indoors and is therefore probably gay

ahappychappy said :

Here, we’ve got what could be visual proof that this man is attemping to break/breaking the law.

It could be a picture of absolutely anyone at all.

What ‘proof’ of a crime is there?

I don’t see this image as being an infringement of the guy’s rights, nor any attempt to curtail any presumption of innocence.

The OP has simply said:
1. someone stole my credit card
2. someone tried to use it at IGA
3. this is the photo taken at the same time the card was used
4. it is more than likely the man in the photo is in possession of the card
5. the OP would like his card back
6. finding the man in the photo would very likely be of assistance in finding the card

No defamations, no charges laid, no criminal investigations compromised, the guy just wants his stuff back and this guy probably would be of assistance. Let’s call him a ‘person of interest’ for the civil rights activist brigade…

Smack,

1) You still need to prove intent re: financial advantage, all we have is a still photo.
Mindread as you will.

2) There are nine other parts to “Attempt”, including ‘intent and knowledge’, and ‘more than merely a preparatory action’ (ie: preparing to commit a crime is not a crime).

But who are we to stand in the way of an angry & potentially defamatory mob?

Every single item in the TV news now has the words “allegedly”, “suspected”, “accused” etc in it to avoid exactly what everyone is arguing about not. So much so that often (lazy) news reports put the word in the wrong part of a sentence rendering it meaningless, referring to some factual event are “allegedly”.

Skidbladnir said :

Again, you seem to think there’s no need for any kind of investigation, charges, trial, or findingof guilt, before you join with an emotional lowest-common-denominator on RiotACT demanding amateur-administered mob “justice”, based purely on the accusation of a stranger .

Refer to my posts again. This is a public forum – We’ve all seen worse accusations from many people (including yourself) through the posts here on this public forum.

Here, we’ve got what could be visual proof that this man is attemping to break/breaking the law. Yet instead of saying, “Wow, that sucks. I hope you get your things back.” you throw it back in the OP’s face, when they DIDN’T say they wished to persecute/prosecute the offender, they were merely trying to obtain their property and this was their only lead. “Let’s all defend this man (when we have less or no knowledge of the situation compared to the OP) as he is unjustly being suspected of a crime, and in doing-so, let’s barrage them with quotes and prove our intelligence!” Your arrogance is hardly hidden.

And we wonder why RiotACT struggles to get new frequent posting visitors…

smack said :

Skid, I would suggest that you not correct. I would argue that he could be charged with attempt to obtaining financial advantage by deception.

Of course he *could* be charged.

After he was charged, his guilt would need to be proved.

After that point, someone could post about it and everyone could complain that the sentence wasn’t long enough, as per usual.

The point is: he *has not* been charged. All that has happened is some unverified ‘evidence’ has been presented to the public, many of whom have decided that kneejerk vigilantism and foaming at the mouth is preferable to the presumption of innocence.

Caf, I moved off dealing with Rossau long ago (noting that he hadn’t posted a comment in his own thread), and onto the people who were all for abusing the AFP\bank\man pictured above for their perceived misgivings, and crying about how a man who’s only proven action has been letting his photo be taken in the IGA Isabella Plains “MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE!!!!”

isnt the simple thing to post the images, describe the crime and then say it is “suspected” the man in the image attempted to use the stolen credit card and let people connect the dots?

Skid, I would suggest that you not correct. I would argue that he could be charged with attempt to obtaining financial advantage by deception. Below is the offence from the ACT Criminal Code. With many offences in the CC there is the alternate offence of attempt. The link is below if you want to read the full sections. You could also argue that he could be charged with unlawful possession of stolen property Section 324 (ie the card). As it is a strict liability offence he would have to show that he didn’t have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the property concerned was stolen property or
otherwise unlawfully obtained property.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2002-51/current/pdf/2002-51.pdf

332 Obtaining financial advantage by deception
A person commits an offence if the person, by deception,
dishonestly obtains a financial advantage from someone else.
Maximum penalty: 1 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years
or both.

44 Attempt
(1) If a person attempts to commit an offence, the person commits the
offence of attempting to commit that offence.

Pffft – Skid with your ‘facts’ and ‘law’. What an elitist point of view.

Surely it’s enough to merely suspect someone of something in order to make public allegations. Then it’s up to the accused to prove that they’re innocent (by which point the reputation of the person is irreparably soiled anyway).

ahappychappy said :

Why should someone who’s suspected of breaking the law be covered by “rights” to privacy when he willingly entered a store with CCTV, and the intention of breaking the law?

Wether or not he did things are the point of police investigations. Either something happened and he did it, or something happened and he did not do it.

But before you enact a finding of guilt in a court of law, you need to overcome a legal instrument called presumption of innocence[1], and the logic requirement of burden of evidenciary proof upon those who assert, not on those who would deny.
Prove the person who broke into the car was him. Prove the intent to damage.
Prove the thief was him. Prove the intent to steal.
Or prove the charge of receiving stolen goods. Prove the knowing or believing goods to be stolen.

Evidently, by the card being turned down, the security features of the credit purchase system work, in that no purchase occurred so there was no crime of Obtaining property by deception.

Again, you seem to think there’s no need for any kind of investigation, charges, trial, or findingof guilt, before you join with an emotional lowest-common-denominator on RiotACT demanding amateur-administered mob “justice”, based purely on the accusation of a stranger .

Skid, you’re missing the point that the OP is not interested in having this person brought to court, because the cops clearly told him they’re not going to look into it.

All he’s potentially done is defamed the person in question (there are no rights to privacy when you’re wandering around the supermarket) – and this is clearly a calculated risk, because the OP thinks he has good enough evidence to use as a “truth” defence to such. It’s for the OP to decide if he wants to take that risk, not you.

You can only charge the man with the theft of the card if you can prove it was him.
Carrying a credit card which has been stolen is only a count of receiving stolen goods if the person receives it knowing or believing the property to be stolen, and you can prove it.
Attempting to use the card and being declined is not a count of Obtaining property by deception, since no property was obtained through deception.

For these to be court-of-law convictions, you would need that proof.
For the purposes of this story, I am yet to see justification on why or how this sequence of pictures somehow provides a substantial proof of the above or correctly infers a man’s state of mind.

You’re getting carried away on emotion & vigliantism (now under a “We’re defending your potential future\current property rights by removing a man’s privacy and personal rights without charge.” banner), people.
It is afterall, just a piece of non-confirmed gossip and some photos.

Special G said :

The USA started doing something similar to stop bank robberies. Cameras at face height directly in front of the teller – anyone walking up gets a fantastic face shot. If anyone attempts to rob the place the picture is then plastered all over the media requesting ID to be provided to the Police.

Thats the way it generally works. Generally the police get the CCTV images then release one, sometimes two images (which are relevant to the case) to the media, and ask the public to contact their tip line.

This is quite different from giving a victim-of-crime a photo of the crime, to be published on the internet, to ask for help in identifying the offender. I see no mention of you asking the public to contact the police, all I seem to see is you asking for help to identify the offender so you can get your stuff back. As Tooks suggested, have you contacted the police since your initial enquiry, and what have they said in response?

I’ll double post too.

Why does everyone jump in with the definitions these days anyways?
Aren’t we as a community trying to get/keep these people off the streets?

Not to mention if we want to jump down peoples throats with other peoples “rights” and what is legal and illegal about their posts/comments, all those screaming the loudest need to have a look at themselves when commenting…

I could count hundreds of times where individuals within the community have been defamed and ridiculed, sometimes by those screaming “his rights, his rights”. Take a look at most of the Police Wraps and even use the search tool for Peisley/Grech/Winchester and have a read… then get back to me on defamation/libel/”rights”.

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

Pommy bastard said :

The scaredy cats who are worrying about this person’s “rights” are the reason that we have such a screwed up justice system, where accused “rights” take precedence over the victims…

{/quote]

The best comment I’ve read on here. +1000000000000000000000

So you disagree with the principle that people are ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

I was waiting for that.

I do agree with innocent until proven guilty – When there is reasonable doubt.

But, if there is evidence (like this) showing this man trying to use a stolen credit card (whether HE personally stole it or not) then why does he have the “right” to ask to remove this photo without proving the evidence is wrong? If he can prove it is HIS creditcard, and he’s not attempting to fraudulently use a creditcard (which is breaking the law in itself whether he stole it or not) then let him come forward and it can be removed and defamation charges laid.

All the goody-goody greenies whinging about “rights” and all the other bullcrap need to harden up. Why should someone who’s suspected of breaking the law be covered by “rights” to privacy when he willingly entered a store with CCTV, and the intention of breaking the law? Did you want him to sign a piece of paper saying “I agree to being filmed on CCTV”? Does everyone in the city at night (with the new CCTV system) need to sign papers allowing themselves to be filmed if they assault someone? Have a cup of concrete.

ahappychappy said :

Pommy bastard said :

The scaredy cats who are worrying about this person’s “rights” are the reason that we have such a screwed up justice system, where accused “rights” take precedence over the victims…

{/quote]

The best comment I’ve read on here. +1000000000000000000000

So you disagree with the principle that people are ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

pptvb are you for real????/

Quite frankly how the hell can you compare photoshopping someones head into a bath with a child and calling him a Paedophile with CCTV footage of someone actually trying to pass a dodgy credit card and commit fraud. There is I suppose the very small possibility that the person in the film is not a criminal and if that is the case then at the end of the day ‘no harm no foul’. Before you bleat on about the chance that publishing this image has in some way damaged his mind due to the stress caused by his photo appearing ask yourself this: Is he guilty of anything? if the answer is yes and you know him dob him in if the answer is No and you know him tell him so he can have his picure removed from this site.

The film taken at the time of the offence shows THIS guy, no doubt the cashier was asked if they remember this guy trying to pass a card that was refused (people do remember those things as they are out of the norm) and they answered yes. No one is suggesting that he be hung drawn and quartered but merely saying he should be held accountable for his actions, stealing the card is theft attempting to use the card is attempted fraud so either way a crime was committed whether he took the card or not.

Let’s not chase people just in case they didn’t do it and let’s hope that next time it isn’t you credit card/identity he “doesn’t” steal because no doubt you may feel slightly different if he managed to steal a few grand off you. And if that wouldn’t bother you can i have your credit card please.

Hang on, who says police aren’t following this up and that it isn’t a current investigation? If I was the OP I’d be ringing the case officer to get an update before running around playing amateur detective.

If the police refuse to take any action, despite the existence of good images of someone using the stolen card, then people are left with no other option but to try to do something themself.

Personally, I would like to see the police following this up to start with.

Although you’re mad leaving such valuable items in the car I wish you good luck finding this thuggy scumbag. You’ll need even more luck even if you find him for the police to give a stuff and do something. Everybody knows that Canberra is one of the top places to be a crim with bugger all chance of being caught. If you do get caught, the revolving door ACT court system will see you back at the trade in no time.

I like this. It shows some balls. If the guy in the photo’s dosn’t like it then let him comeforward and complain about it – its a free world.

I for one will definately be going out of my way to make sure that I give this IGA some of my business. These people obviously have their head screwed on right and are prepared to stand up against the sadly all to inevitabe conga-line of wanna-be human rights lawyers and bleeding hearts who whould have us believe that what this twat really needs is our love and understanding.

Whether the supermarket give out the footage is up to them, they are the owners of the footage. I woud assume rossau has provided the owners evidence that the card was stolen and was used there. Whether the owners knew that he was going to come and plaster the images online is something I have a query about.

From the images I think there is little doubt that the person in the images is using the stolen card, it would be easy for the supermarket to tell all they would have to do is match the purchase amount to the time and the camera time. However, from the wording used, “attempted” indicates the card was declined by the operator or the system indicated the card had been reported stolen – they do that if you have cancelled the card as lost or stolen. There would be no case for defamation here as the truth is easily proven.

Anywaym I have generally found that the credit card companies and AFP are generally excellent in following up purchases on stolen credit cards, though it does take time. The images provided which are very clear and these people are normally repeat offenders, not normally difficult to trace unless they’re from interstate. It probably could have been left to the police..

Why on earth anyone would leave those sort of documents in their car and assuming in plain sight is mind boggling.

The USA started doing something similar to stop bank robberies. Cameras at face height directly in front of the teller – anyone walking up gets a fantastic face shot. If anyone attempts to rob the place the picture is then plastered all over the media requesting ID to be provided to the Police.

Should be doing it here.
Riotact can be the first to trial such a system.
Anyone with information as to old maties ID call crimestoppers on 1800333000 etc..

While I love to see CCTV footage assist a conviction, there are correct avenues.
This is not one.
The “Lynch-Mob Logic” on here is scary.
Using this logic I could take a photo of the next idiot who cuts me off in traffic, photo shop it with a kid in a bath, post it on Riot-ACT, call him a Paedophile, and sit back expecting no consequences.
After he proves it is not true, I then simply have to apologise and he will accept it. No hard feelings, no damage to his name & reputation. The apology cleans the slate.
This is the thought-out logic that will see you chanting on Mt Ainslie on Saturday !

Pommy bastard said :

The scaredy cats who are worrying about this person’s “rights” are the reason that we have such a screwed up justice system, where accused “rights” take precedence over the victims…

If this guy was convicted, sure publish his photo everywhere, but last I checked in Australia (as with your native Pommy-land), people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Just because someone is a ‘victim’ having been denied some right (in this case the right to safety of posessions), it doesnt give them the right to deny other people their rights.

Lots of crimes have ‘victims’ but in our system of justice in this country, its up to the courts who have all the evidence before them, to make any decisions about guilt.

However, it seems in society today, were all rushing to play the blame-game.

Obviously staff don’t check the card name & signature panel? he doesn’t look very female’ish.

I just remembered something I heard on Triple J, Nerds of a Feather, Paul Verhoven was talking on Tuesday morning about how the UK have set up a website whereby they post up CCTV photos of criminals and allow people on the internet to spot them and identify them for rewards. The system is being tested/set up first in Stratford-upon-Avon next month.

http://clickworldnews.com/2009/10/09/urban-surveillance-as-a-game/
DailyMail story
interneteyes

So should we start handing out RiotACT prizes to make this a better system?

You can almost hear the sound of the lynching mob getting ready to go this guy.

This ‘evidence’ is a little flimsy. Who knows if he is guilty of any crime.

A friend of mine was attacked with a hammer by someone due to a mistaken identity. He has never really gotten over what happened.

Pommy bastard said :

The scaredy cats who are worrying about this person’s “rights” are the reason that we have such a screwed up justice system, where accused “rights” take precedence over the victims…

{/quote]

The best comment I’ve read on here. +1000000000000000000000

Right on Special G and others who are with Rossau on this. Good luck. Glad someone standing up for themselves for once.

Inappropriate said :

There is clear evidence he is in possession of stolen goods, and willfully attempting to commit fraud. Whether he stole the goods is another matter, but I dare say he’s got first hand knowledge of who stole the goods in the first instance.

Agreed, the guy in the picture may in fact be an idiot, knowingly carrying a credit card which had earlier that day been stolen. (ie: “Receiving”, ACT Criminal Code 2002, Section 313)

But there’s a few logical steps missing from:
“Someone broke into my car in Kambah”,
“Someone took things from my car”,
“The person using my credit card (one of the things stolen from my car) a few hours later knew it to be stolen (ie: would have used it dishonestly even if the transaction were successful).”,

and arriving at both
“All of the above were committed the man pictured, and you can see from the CCTV footage that he intended to commit fraud”,
and
“Even though the credit card transaction was declined and so there was no instance of ‘Obtaining property by deception’ (Division 3.3.2, Section 326), neither my financial institution nor ACT Policing are willing to investigate what I believe to be an offense and instead they claim they have better things to do. Despite being experts in financial law or law enforcement, they don’t have the slightest idea.”

Give me better logic or proper evidence, and I’ll take you out of the “I’m an emotional citizen aiming for you all to support my efforts at vigilantism” category.

And why is IGA simply giving out their security footage to private citizens who ask for it?

bormans said :

The defence against a defamation case would be truth.
The fact that it was obvious who was using that card was actually trying to use it and it was not his.

True overseas but unfortunately in Australia it may not be enough.

See the zgeek defamation case http://www.efa.org.au/2009/07/15/zgeek-defamation-lawsuit-struck-out/ . They won, but have no protection against being sued again, and can’t afford the legal battle.

The laws in Australia suck and it’s only by luck of our mostly anti-litigious culture that people don’t realise how bad it is.

Haha, it’s a good thing that Isabella Plains IGA isn’t the sole stockist of tin-foil or some of you would be boned! ;P

Just wait til someone brings [url=”http://interneteyes.co.uk/”]Internet Eyes[/url] to Australia. It’s going to be awesome.

But I don’t think the 2nd last photo is of any use to post.

I think in the 2nd last photo he has the credit card in his hands 🙂

Im happy to see something like this, well done ROSSAU.

I hope you catch this thief and it would be only sweeter if you get him this way.

Put the photos out there.

To much dancing around peoples privacy, civil rights and other hoo haa. If you do something wrong then your privacy is out the window until you are sentenced. What about the rights of the rest of the community?

There’s no justice like angry “I looked it up on Wikipedia” justice. 😉

From a purely personal stand-point, I visit the Isabella IGA on occasion, but now after having seen these images, which they were so willing to hand over to a victim of crime for a vendetta, I will never visit that supermarket again. Its one thing to be taking security images to give to the police or the courts, its quite another thing to be taking video which you just hand out to everyone who asks for it. If the police obtain this image and decide to publish it, they do so only after careful consideration, and if theyve got a dozen images, they wont give you images where you can identify others in the photo, as you and the bank have done here. One wonders how easily these sorts of images can be obtained? Can I simply go into an IGA and say ‘Someone might have used my stolen card here, in a half-hour window, can you give me all your CCTV footage?’

I had a similar problem once when my car was broken into, maybe 5m away from CCTV camera. Not only was I not allowed access to the video, the police informed me that even for them to get access to the video they had to make official enquiries, and unless there was a major assault or a murder, there were no circumstances under which theyd release the tape to me or anyone else.

Skidbladnir said :

How often do you make a stranger the subject of a picture on Facebook and then in the same act, publicly accuse them of attempting fraud, and then go on try to link them to the seperate crime of someone breaking into your car?

There is clear evidence he is in possession of stolen goods, and willfully attempting to commit fraud. Whether he stole the goods is another matter, but I dare say he’s got first hand knowledge of who stole the goods in the first instance.

If he was not the person trying to use a stolen credit card, then he can come forward and deserves an apology, no more no less.

I think rossau has done exactly the right thing here, and is to be commended for it.

The scaredy cats who are worrying about this person’s “rights” are the reason that we have such a screwed up justice system, where accused “rights” take precedence over the victims…

I hope he gets caught, I doubt he’ll be punished..

+1 for WMC.

RA has of late been developing a ‘why’ as opposed to a ‘why not’ attitude (as seems to be prevalent in APS circles). Here’s a man trying to find the guy who attempted to use his wife’s credit card, and people try to bog him down in legal mumbo jumbo. If I see him, I’ll just ask him. I back my chances of running faster than he.

I think the really sad thing is that there are obviously blatant clues that are not being investigated. A citizen is being put to the trouble of investigating their own crime. Theft isn’t nothing; and if it is nothing, why bother having laws against it?

and now that he has your address…………
maybe he will pay you a visit.

Lets hope it is to return your stuff.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Ooh, don’t chase the scary man who took your stuff. Best to huddle at home alone and pray he doesn’t come back and murder you for denying him his ‘due process rights’.

Grow a pair, Australia.

I agree. We need to harden up a bit here.

If he feels he’s been defamed then let him disprove all the evidence collected?

If he can prove that he didn’t steal the credit card or try to fraudulently use the creditcard then good on him and he can persue the defamation/libel/whateveryouwannacallit.

The defence against a defamation case would be truth.
The fact that it was obvious who was using that card was actually trying to use it and it was not his.

Birth Certificate? Passport? WTF? Its all well and good to blame the bank and police for not helping you out but you aren’t exactly doing yourself any favours by carrying that stuff around with you or leaving in the car. I suppose you needed to learn the hard way. Good luck.

hk0reduck said :

But, I don’t think he’s right, what’s the difference between this and posting a picture on facebook with someone you don’t know in the background?

Depends.
How often do you make a stranger the subject of a picture on Facebook and then in the same act, publicly accuse them of attempting fraud, and then go on try to link them to the seperate crime of someone breaking into your car?

If he was having a trial in a court of law, having already been charged with commiting a crime, this guy would have a few simple rights, like the right to control one’s own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, etc…
None of those impediments in a court of public opinion, though.

You might want to brush up on something like this, just in case he isn’t responsible for either or both the theft, and the attempted fraud, that you’re alleging though…

Defamation – Also called libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification – is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant). If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred.

Ooh, don’t chase the scary man who took your stuff. Best to huddle at home alone and pray he doesn’t come back and murder you for denying him his ‘due process rights’.

Grow a pair, Australia.

I don’t see what’s wrong with posting the images?

It’s a condition of entry to any IGA that you will be recorded on camera: you have the choice to not enter their store. It’s not illegal for IGA to record your image. There is no expectation of privacy in a supermarket.

As for posting his image here: well it’s not defaming. There is records of this person using a credit card that wasn’t his: that’s established fact. It’s undeniable he attempted fraud.

1.rossau had better be sure that this is the guy that tried to use the card.
This happened over 2 weeks ago. Is the time on the IGA’s DVR correct?
What if it is out by 5 or 10 minutes? Maybe even an hour due to daylight saving!
( I see that all the time)
2. This man you labelled as a thief may not have stolen your card, but was just trying
to use it. Still wrong, but be sure before accusing.
3. How irresponsible is it of the IGA to release images of their registers? Poor security.
4. @ Caf….This is a public place, not public space. Big difference.

I don’t have a problem with the resourcefulness of rossau, hey, I make a lot of money installing CCTV, but the IGA erred and rossau had better be very sure of his facts before accusing so publicly.

Side note: I’d rather see something like this for (convicted) drink drivers.

It seems to me, that if he was the one using the card (and IGA would be pretty sure before giving you the footage) then hopefully he will come forward to complain about his image.

Good job trying to catch the so & so. But I don’t think the 2nd last photo is of any use to post.

We’d like to expedite recovery rather than replacing her passport, our baby’s birth certificate and our marriage certificate, and to recover our other stuff both valuable and that which we value.

Was all that stuff in your car ?

My first priority would be to put a stop on the card rather than try and recover it.

Good luck, I hope he gets nabbed…thought not sure of any legal implications with disseminating his image publically.

Good on you Rossau!

I hope pptvb is right, it would make it a whole lot easier if this guy was to front up at court accusing them of invasion of privacy 😉

But, I don’t think he’s right, what’s the difference between this and posting a picture on facebook with someone you don’t know in the background?

Perhaps a reminder to everyone not to leave valuables in the car.
In finding out the identity of the person – do you really think they are still going to have your documents? Cut your losses and be thankful that the transaction was unsuccessful.
Even if you find out who it is, how are you going to prove that they were the person who stole the items from your car?
sorry to be so negative.

pptvb said :

These images should not have been given to you by the IGA, whatever your motive.
They have opened themselves up to a world of trouble by doing this.
Good luck though.

why is that, looks like bank and afp are not that interested ?

pptvb: Rubbish, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

One of the bookstores in Manuka even prints security camera footage and pastes it up in their front window, along with a sign describing those pictured as theives.

Way to play dangerous games, Rossau.

IGA are being helpful, but perhaps too helpful.
Together you’re denying the defendant’s due process rights in favour of expediting your own (personally preferred) outcome.

awww. he looks like a decent bloke as well.

post his name when you find out.

Then apply for a job at the AFP.

PPtvb – I think that’s for IGA to judge, not some indignant self righteous poster on RA. Personally I love that they might help catch this scum bag and good on Rossau for posting this.

pptvb said :

These images should not have been given to you by the IGA, whatever your motive.
They have opened themselves up to a world of trouble by doing this.
Good luck though.

I applaud IGA for doing this. I believe the old name and shame should be brought back in.

Side question, why do you have to replace your wife’s passport, your baby’s birth certificate and your marriage certificate, this seems a bit different to identity theft?

What sort of trouble? Servos do this sort of thing all the time, putting up photos of theives. If you want you can record people or take photographs in any public place and do what you like with the photos, how is this any different?

I’m not saying this as in I’m right so prove otherwise, I would like to know why I could take photos of this chap and hand them out (which I am 98% certain you can do), but IGA can’t do the same.

Good job.

These images should not have been given to you by the IGA, whatever your motive.
They have opened themselves up to a world of trouble by doing this.
Good luck though.