Yes, you needed your medication. This is a defence.
Not particularly relevant to police.
Do not panic. If the police do decide to issue charges you will have plenty of time to find a lawyer to help defend you in court.
VIC Accused of Shoplifting - What to Do Now?
- Thread starter Gail Sears
- Start date
-
- Tags
- police shoplifting
Yes, you needed your medication. This is a defence.
Not particularly relevant to police.
Do not panic. If the police do decide to issue charges you will have plenty of time to find a lawyer to help defend you in court.
Thanks Rod,
You are a very patient person. I'm just so bloody angry that the police seemed to have treated everything I said with disdain. It's quite insulting to be treated Ike a liar! I will def get a solicitor cause it's quite apparent I would have zero idea of what I'm doing in a court room and telling the truth hasn't served to work in my favour.
So I'll tell the same truth but this time, I'll get professional representation. I just wish they'd give me the summons but as you said, that will happen when it happens.
Do they tell you if they're not going to charge you or do you have to ring and ask? Probably best to get a solicitor to make that phone call, I guess cause I'm not gong to speak to the police again.
They are so rude!
You are a very patient person. I'm just so bloody angry that the police seemed to have treated everything I said with disdain. It's quite insulting to be treated Ike a liar! I will def get a solicitor cause it's quite apparent I would have zero idea of what I'm doing in a court room and telling the truth hasn't served to work in my favour.
So I'll tell the same truth but this time, I'll get professional representation. I just wish they'd give me the summons but as you said, that will happen when it happens.
Do they tell you if they're not going to charge you or do you have to ring and ask? Probably best to get a solicitor to make that phone call, I guess cause I'm not gong to speak to the police again.
They are so rude!
No. They might later change their minds or get new evidence.
Best not to ask. It is possible it works its way to the bottom of someone's in-tray, they go on leave, and get too busy when they come back and eventually they can't find their notes and the matter slips into the waste basket. Calling them might prompt them to put the matter back on top of their in-tray.
Not really any different to how most professions work. Think 'squeaky wheels' - don't be the noise that gets noticed.
This sounds like an old homework question. Having said that, the amount of misinformation in this thread in troubling. Especially surrounding s73 and intention to permanently deprive.
Given that you returned the item mere minutes are taking it, you wouldn't satisfy the element of intention to permanently deprive. I say this on the assumption that no one approached you and requested that you return it and you did so of your own free will.
Moreover, none of the instances that come to mind in s73(12) are relevant nor are 73(8) and 73(10); special owners.
Taking an item from a store and walking out with it does not automatically amount to theft.
I would suggest taking advice from a solicitor.
Given that you returned the item mere minutes are taking it, you wouldn't satisfy the element of intention to permanently deprive. I say this on the assumption that no one approached you and requested that you return it and you did so of your own free will.
Moreover, none of the instances that come to mind in s73(12) are relevant nor are 73(8) and 73(10); special owners.
Taking an item from a store and walking out with it does not automatically amount to theft.
I would suggest taking advice from a solicitor.
I never said it did. If, however, you deliberately put an item in your own bag and walk out the store without paying for it you have committed theft,and it doesn't matter if you return it 5 minutes later or the next day. It boils down to the attitude of the police who take the call. If they want to charge you they can and will. Will they succeed in court is a totally different story.
re: s73. I know someone who took something for safekeeping from a worksite late on a friday, saw it had tracking so put it back thinking they will think he stole it. Owner said device was never found. Police charged this person with theft - I read the brief. It can and does happen.
Not sure what experience you have with Vic police charging people with theft but mine says they take a liberal interpretation when they feel like it and let the court sort it out.
I fail to see the value in you saying it is not theft without backing up your statement. My definition is the text-book version backed with personal experience. Interested in your experiences with Vic police arresting people and interviewing them for theft which is what has happened here to the OP.
And it is too early to see a solicitor, wait till the police make contact again and go from there. If it was me I wouldn't do another interview though until after speaking with a lawyer.
OP might be lucky and they may decide not to proceed. It is unlikely the OP can do anything at this point that will change what the police do.
Ok, guys,
The law is obviously a very complicated area. I don't have a law degree, but I do have 2 masters degrees, one in English Lit and one in Education. To the non-lawyer, both Rod and Iamthelaw seem to be, and I emphasize "seem" to be saying two different things: a person either walks out of a store with an item without paying and commits theft., or does not.
The only interpretation I can put on this "difference of opinion" is that lamthelaw says it's not "automatic" because there may be mitigating circumstances, e.g. talking on your phone and forgetting you have something? Whilst Rod seems to be saying if there are no mitigating circumstances, and anyone walks out of a shop with an item, then by the letter of the law, you have committed the crime of theft.
So I feel my criminal record is analogous to a melting pot where the police throw whatever they like, mix it, and serve it up to a court to sort out. That way, the retailer knows it's going to court, the police do their job and the client who had no intention of doing anything wrong just has to deal with it, pay a lawyer and try to continue with their life whilst they await an outcome of their case "in the system".
Obviously, theft is better understood by examining what the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and hopefully the magistrate sticks to that definition and we abide by that decision unless we appeal.
What sucks is this: my teacher registration needs renewing and I need a clear Police Check. I can't get a police check 'cause I have a charge pending that could sit there for up to 12 months or until whenever the police choose to draw a summons! What! Seriously!
Why are charges all done on police checks! Convictions, I get. That's why police checks exist. But charges aren't convictions. Maybe ok Rod to say don't be a noisy wheel but when your livelihood depends on a police check, I can't await a year!
I think I'll start a blog about this (charges on police checks)!
I need to be formally charged on summons so I can see a solicitor and progress this matter through the court system and defend myself.
The law is obviously a very complicated area. I don't have a law degree, but I do have 2 masters degrees, one in English Lit and one in Education. To the non-lawyer, both Rod and Iamthelaw seem to be, and I emphasize "seem" to be saying two different things: a person either walks out of a store with an item without paying and commits theft., or does not.
The only interpretation I can put on this "difference of opinion" is that lamthelaw says it's not "automatic" because there may be mitigating circumstances, e.g. talking on your phone and forgetting you have something? Whilst Rod seems to be saying if there are no mitigating circumstances, and anyone walks out of a shop with an item, then by the letter of the law, you have committed the crime of theft.
So I feel my criminal record is analogous to a melting pot where the police throw whatever they like, mix it, and serve it up to a court to sort out. That way, the retailer knows it's going to court, the police do their job and the client who had no intention of doing anything wrong just has to deal with it, pay a lawyer and try to continue with their life whilst they await an outcome of their case "in the system".
Obviously, theft is better understood by examining what the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and hopefully the magistrate sticks to that definition and we abide by that decision unless we appeal.
What sucks is this: my teacher registration needs renewing and I need a clear Police Check. I can't get a police check 'cause I have a charge pending that could sit there for up to 12 months or until whenever the police choose to draw a summons! What! Seriously!
Why are charges all done on police checks! Convictions, I get. That's why police checks exist. But charges aren't convictions. Maybe ok Rod to say don't be a noisy wheel but when your livelihood depends on a police check, I can't await a year!
I think I'll start a blog about this (charges on police checks)!
I need to be formally charged on summons so I can see a solicitor and progress this matter through the court system and defend myself.
Are you sure about pending charges appearing on the police check?
I don't know one way or other. Read this.
Hi Rod
We're becoming veritable pen pals here!
I'm not sure of anything anymore in relation to all of this except what I know I did. I extracted this from the material u referred me to:
"A criminal record will also contain:
I'm presuming that point 3 is relevant here. The police arrested me for an interview (which I only found out when I got to the station, I thought I was going for a "chat"). Told me I was gong to be charged for theft/shoplifting. I was so gobsmacked I can't remember which of the two. That was a week ago today but I haven't got a summons yet, so quite frankly I've no idea where I am and I'm getting physically ill over it.
I presume if they are going to charge me or even trying to decide to charge me, that would fall under "pending, and if I have started a court hearing that we fall under "ongoing". I have read a couple of sites and they seem to say the same thing. That's all I know! Which isn't really "knowing". It's just an interpretation of what I'm reading I guess.
Any thoughts?
Whilst I'm at it, I might as well ask you this, too.
Are surveillance cameras 100% foolproof? The reason I'm asking is when I said in the interview I went back into the shop, the police asked me how long I had been in my car and I said abut 10 mins. They then asked how long I was in the shop, I said about 20 seconds. Just returned the item, put it on the floor next to the display and left".
This seemed to annoy them big time and they asked me 3 times why I didn't put it back where I got it from and was I certain I put it in the floor". I just said that end of the display was closer to me. There was no room in the shelves at that end. I felt ill and just put it down and left".
They then said they would check and see if they could find me re-entering the store, but they didn't expect to find anything. (That either means they don't believe me or the cameras are more concerned with aisles and people leaving and do not cover people entering). I don't know.
They didn't show me a pic of me entering the store when I was in the interview either. I went to say something about cameras not being foolproof but before I said anything, I got to the word camera and he said in a really really angry way: "you have no idea where the cameras are, so just be quiet!"
I just shut up instantly 'cause I wasn't going to talk about camera location. I don't even know why he said that!
I guess I'm worried that the camera won't pick me up re entering the store or putting the item back. And then I'll be in more trouble unless cameras aren't foolproof.
Are there any views or legal arguments about this?
Sorry to ask so many questions.
We're becoming veritable pen pals here!
I'm not sure of anything anymore in relation to all of this except what I know I did. I extracted this from the material u referred me to:
"A criminal record will also contain:
- Traffic infringements involving convictions (e.g. drink/drug driving, excessive speeding);
- Sentences and penalties; and
- Pending or ongoing court hearings (will have “pending” on the side).
I'm presuming that point 3 is relevant here. The police arrested me for an interview (which I only found out when I got to the station, I thought I was going for a "chat"). Told me I was gong to be charged for theft/shoplifting. I was so gobsmacked I can't remember which of the two. That was a week ago today but I haven't got a summons yet, so quite frankly I've no idea where I am and I'm getting physically ill over it.
I presume if they are going to charge me or even trying to decide to charge me, that would fall under "pending, and if I have started a court hearing that we fall under "ongoing". I have read a couple of sites and they seem to say the same thing. That's all I know! Which isn't really "knowing". It's just an interpretation of what I'm reading I guess.
Any thoughts?
Whilst I'm at it, I might as well ask you this, too.
Are surveillance cameras 100% foolproof? The reason I'm asking is when I said in the interview I went back into the shop, the police asked me how long I had been in my car and I said abut 10 mins. They then asked how long I was in the shop, I said about 20 seconds. Just returned the item, put it on the floor next to the display and left".
This seemed to annoy them big time and they asked me 3 times why I didn't put it back where I got it from and was I certain I put it in the floor". I just said that end of the display was closer to me. There was no room in the shelves at that end. I felt ill and just put it down and left".
They then said they would check and see if they could find me re-entering the store, but they didn't expect to find anything. (That either means they don't believe me or the cameras are more concerned with aisles and people leaving and do not cover people entering). I don't know.
They didn't show me a pic of me entering the store when I was in the interview either. I went to say something about cameras not being foolproof but before I said anything, I got to the word camera and he said in a really really angry way: "you have no idea where the cameras are, so just be quiet!"
I just shut up instantly 'cause I wasn't going to talk about camera location. I don't even know why he said that!
I guess I'm worried that the camera won't pick me up re entering the store or putting the item back. And then I'll be in more trouble unless cameras aren't foolproof.
Are there any views or legal arguments about this?
Sorry to ask so many questions.
I interpret 'pending' as meaning case has been filed at court, not yet heard, but not confident of this.
re: Cameras. Too many variables to comment as to whether it matters in your situation or not. Your story is consistent (you were ill and that's why you didn't go back all the way into the store) which is good. If they charge you and they want to admit video evidence then you'll get a chance to see it. Returning to the store may not have been captured on camera, which is not conclusive one way or the other.
BTW Police do not need camera evidence any more, they have your record of interview they can use. They should also have given you a copy of the interview.
And yep, no point arguing with the police.
If they do file charges, then it will be time to see a solicitor. With a good clean record and what appears to be a reasonable defence you have 3 options open to you that you can discuss with a solicitor:
- Diversion program
- Pleading not guilty using medical defence
- Ask court for a sentencing indication (there's a possibility you can get an unconditional dismissal (no conviction recorded)) if pleading guilty with mitigating circumstances.
I can tell you my experience is vast to say the least. I am not talking about police discretion on whether or not to charge an individual. I am talking about the elements that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that constitute theft pursuant to s74 of the Crimes Act (bearing in mind the provisions of ss72(1) and s73).
The prosecution will need to prove the following:
- The accused appropriated property belonging to another;
- The accused did so with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property; and
- The accused acted dishonestly
At issue would be the intention of the accused and whether the intention was to permanently deprive the owner of the property when she appropriated it (s72(1)). This is for the prosecution to prove - even if an accused has an intention to temporarily deprive the owner of the property the element won't be met. (I think the old common law case is R v Lloyd)
It's as simple as this - The accused says she didn't have the intention to permanently deprive, mere minutes after appropriating the item she returns the same item back without prompt. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that despite this, the accused still bore an intention to permanently deprive. Assuming that all of this can be seen (I assume it would given it's inside a store with security cameras), I'm struggling to see how this would amount to an intention to permanently deprive?
Similar threads
