DAVIS PROSECUTION ALLEGATIONS The defendant is charged that on the 5th day of March 2004, the defendant did steal a watch to the value of $95.00, the property of Harris Scarfe stores. The defendant was observed by the store security officer to be inspecting some watches displayed on the top of a glass counter on the ground floor of Harris Scarfe’s store, Rundle Mall Adelaide. While the shop assistants had their back turned, the defendant was observed to place the watch into the right-hand pocket of the coat he was wearing. The defendant then left the store by the Rundle Mall entrance, without purchasing anything, and proceeded to walk north along Rundle Mall where the store security officer apprehended him. After initially denying taking the watch, the defendant admitted that he had taken the watch without intending to pay for it. The defendant has one prior conviction for disorderly behaviour in April 2000. DEFENCE SUBMISSIONS The defendant is a 22 year old person and is currently unemployed living at his parents’ home. The defendant says that the day of the offence was his father’s 50th birthday and he was embarrassed that he could not afford to buy a substantial present for his father. It struck the defendant on the spur of the moment while in the store that his father needed a new watch and the defendant did not enter the shop intending to take a watch. The defendant states that he was initially scared by the store security officer and did not know who they were when they stopped the defendant in the Rundle Mall. The defendant says that he subsequently cooperated and made full admissions. The defendant regrets the offence and says that it was a spur of the moment event that occurred because the defendant was worried about getting his father a 50th birthday present. The defendant says that a prior offence of disorderly behaviour related to a loud argument in the street in the early hours of the morning after a party when he had been drinking alcohol. The defendant was 18 years old at the time and submits that it is not an offence of dishonesty, which should be taken into account in this case. The defendant receives an unemployment benefit of $240 per fortnight and pays $40 per week board at his parents’ home and is also paying off a loan from his father at the rate of $20 per fortnight. 2 EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY SOUTH AUSTRALIA INFORMATION Summary Procedure Act, 1921 – Section 101 The Information of a Member of the Police Force of Adelaide this 5th day of March 2004 who states that Dean Davis at Rundle Mall, Adelaide on the same day stole a watch, the property of Harris Scarfe Limited. Section 134 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 The informant may make application for compensation. …………………………… (Complainant) SWORN before me at this day of ………………………….. (Witness – a Registrar or Justice of the Peace) 2 ………………………….. (Justice of the Peace) Prosecution Address Prosecution Telephone 3 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 134—Theft (and receiving) (1) A person is guilty of theft if the person deals with property— (a) (b) (c) dishonestly; and without the owner's consent; and intending— (i) (ii) (2) to deprive the owner permanently of the property; or to make a serious encroachment on the owner's proprietary rights. Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years. A person intends to make a serious encroachment on an owner's proprietary rights if the person intends— (a) to treat the property as his or her own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights; or (b) to deal with the property in a way that creates a substantial risk (of which the person is aware)— (i) that the owner will not get it back; or (ii) that, when the owner gets it back, its value will be substantially impaired. (3) It is possible to commit theft as follows: (a) a person may commit theft of property that has come lawfully into his or her possession; (b) a person may commit theft of property by the misuse of powers that are vested in the person as agent or trustee or in some other capacity that allows the person to deal with the property. Example— Suppose that land is vested in a trustee in a fiduciary capacity. She is empowered under the instrument of trust to mortgage the land for the purposes of the trust. The trustee dishonestly mortgages the land as security for a personal liability that is unrelated to the trust. In this case, the trustee commits theft of the interest created by the mortgage. (4) If a person honestly believes that he or she has acquired a good title to property, but it later appears that the title is defective because of a defect in the title of the transferor or for some other reason, the later retention of the property, or any later dealing with the property, by the person cannot amount to theft. (5) Theft committed by receiving stolen property from another amounts to the offence of receiving but may be described either as theft or receiving in an instrument of charge and is, in any event, punishable as a species of theft. (6) If a person is charged with receiving, the court may, if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of theft but not that the theft was committed by receiving stolen property from another, find the defendant guilty of theft.
Pages to are hidden for
"DAVIS"Please download to view full document