If a family member or friend has been charged with a criminal offence, a decision will be made about whether they should be released from police custody on bail, or whether they will be refused bail by police.
Your lawyer will aim to create reasonable doubt about your guilt and to ensure that your rights are protected throughout the legal process.
Q. What constitutes ‘property’?
The legal definition of property is broad. It includes any property of a tangible nature, including electricity, gas, water, a wild creature that is tamed or ordinarily kept in someone’s possession, and any organ or part of a human body or substance extracted from a human body.
Q. What is the legal definition of ‘dishonest’?
The legal definition of a dishonest act refers to what would be considered dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
However, taking property belonging to another is not dishonest if you believe that the person to whom the property belongs could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps (this does not apply if you held the property as a trustee or personal representative).
Taking someone else’s property can still be dishonest even if you or another person is willing to pay for it.
Determining whether you acted dishonestly is up to the trier of fact.
Q. What does it mean to ‘appropriate property’?
For someone to appropriate property, they must have assumed any of the rights of an owner to ownership, possession or control of the property, without the consent of a person to whom the property belongs.
If you came by the property (innocently or not) without committing theft, then appropriation occurs when, without any consent from the owner, you keep it or deal with it as the owner of the property.
If you receive property from a person in good faith, and then assume the rights of the owner that you believed were transferred to you with the property, then you cannot be found to have appropriated property due to a defect in the transferor’s title.
Q. What if it is unclear if the property belonged to someone else?
Many factors can make it unclear if the property belongs to someone else. If the property belongs to two or more people, then a reference to one of the people to whom the property belongs can be taken as a reference to each of them.
If property is subject to a trust, then the person to whom the property belongs can include anyone who has a right to enforce the trust. Further, an intention to defeat the trust is an intention to deprive any such person of the property.
Property of a corporation solely belongs to the corporation despite a vacancy in the corporation. If person A receives property from or on account of someone else (person B) and is under a legal obligation to B to retain and deal with the property or its proceeds in a particular way, then the property or proceeds of the property belong to B, against A.
If person A gets property by a fundamental mistake and is under a legal obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property, then the property or its proceeds belong (to the extent of the obligation and against A) to the person entitled to restoration (person B). An intention not to make restoration is an intention to permanently deprive B of the property or the proceeds, and an appropriation of the property or proceeds without B’s consent. A fundamental mistake in this situation means either a mistake about the identity of the person getting the property, a mistake about the essential nature of the property or a mistake about the amount of any money (if the person getting the money is aware of the mistake when getting the money).
Q. How is it determined that I had the intention of permanently depriving another person of their property?
It will be found that you had the intention of permanently depriving another person of their property if the prosecution can prove that you appropriated property belonging to another person meaning for them to permanently lose their property and you intended to treat the property as your own to dispose of anyway, regardless of the owner’s rights over the property.
Taking property with an intention to return it to the owner in due course would of course not meet this element of the offence.
It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether actions taken are considered an attempt to treat the property as one’s own to dispose of. For example, if you borrow or lend property belonging to another, the borrowing or lending can amount to treating the property as your own to dispose of regardless of the rights of the person lending the property to you. Nevertheless, you can only be seen as intending to permanently deprive if the borrowing or the lending is for a period and, in circumstances, equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. Further, if you have possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another person, and you part with the property under a condition about its return that you may not be able to carry out, and that parting has been done for your own purposes and without the other person’s (the owner’s) authority, then that parting can be seen as treating the property as your own to dispose of, regardless of the owner’s rights.
There are also other situations in which you may be considered by the courts to have intentionally permanently deprived someone else of property. In a theft case, a good lawyer can help navigate the complexities of proving the intention to permanently deprive another person of their property.
Q. What are the alternative verdicts relating to theft?
Alternative verdicts relate to theft in situations involving the taking of a motor vehicle without consent, theft or obtaining property by deception and receiving, and theft and obtaining property by deception.
Section 370 of the Criminal Code deals with alternative verdicts for the theft and taking of motor vehicles without consent. This section applies if, while you are on trial for theft, the trier of fact is not satisfied that you committed theft but is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed an offence against section 318, which relates to taking a motor vehicle without consent. In this situation you may then be found guilty of that offence, however only if you have been given procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.
Section 371 of the Criminal Code deals with the alternative verdict for charges of theft or obtaining property by deception and deceiving. If you are on trial for theft or obtaining property by deception and the trier of fact is not satisfied that you committed the offence, but they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed an offence of receiving, then you may be found guilty for that offence, but only if you have received procedural fairness. This effect can also occur vice versa, wherein while on trial for receiving, the trier of fact may find you guilty of the alternative verdicts of theft or obtaining property by deception, provided you have been given procedural fairness in the finding of guilt.
Finally, section 372 of the Criminal Code states in a trial for theft, a trier of fact may find the defendant guilty of obtaining property by deception if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed that offence and if the defendant has been given procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt. This effect can also occur vice versa, wherein while on trial for obtaining property by deception, the trier of fact may find you guilty of theft, provided you have been given procedural fairness in the finding of guilt.
All of these alternative verdicts do not apply in matters of minor theft.
The crucial difference between an offence of ‘theft’ and ‘minor theft’ is that for an offence of minor theft, the prosecution must prove the value of the property was less than $2,000.00. This is not an element for an offence of ‘theft’.
When facing charges of theft or minor theft, it’s crucial to understand the distinctions. While both involve dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intent of permanently depriving them, minor theft specifically pertains to property valued at $2000 or less. This distinction underscores the importance of seeking legal advice. Talking to a lawyer can provide clarity on the charges you’re facing and help navigate the legal complexities involved in your defence strategy.
Q: What constitutes ‘property’?
A: The legal definition of property is quite broad. It includes any property of a tangible nature, including electricity, gas, water, a wild creature that is tamed or ordinarily kept in someone’s possession, and any organ or part of a human body or substance extracted from a human body.
Q: What is the legal definition of ‘dishonest’?
A: The legal definition of a dishonest act refers to what would be considered as dishonest as per the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
However, taking property belonging to another is not dishonest if you believe that the person to whom the property belongs could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps (this does not apply if you held the property as a trustee or personal representative).
Taking someone else’s property can still be dishonest even if you or another person is willing to pay for it.
Determining whether you acted dishonestly is up to the trier of fact.
Q: What does it mean to ‘appropriate property’?
A: For someone to appropriate property, they must have assumed any of the rights of an owner to ownership, possession or control of the property, without the consent of a person to whom the property belongs.
If you came by the property (innocently or not) without committing theft, then appropriation occurs when, without any consent from the owner, you keep it or deal with it as the owner of the property.
If you receive property from a person in good faith, and then assume the rights of the owner that you believed were transferred to you with the property, then you cannot be found to have appropriated property due to a defect in the transferor’s title.
Q: What if it is unclear if the property belonged to someone else?
A: Many factors can make it unclear if the property belongs to someone else. If the property belongs to two or more people, then a reference to one of the people to whom the property belongs can be taken as a reference to each of them.
If property is subject to a trust, then the person to whom the property belongs can include anyone who has a right to enforce the trust. Further, an intention to defeat the trust is an intention to deprive any such person of the property.
Property of a corporation solely belongs to the corporation despite a vacancy in the corporation.
If a person A receives property from or on account of someone else (person B) and is under a legal obligation to B to retain and deal with the property or its proceeds in a particular way, then the property or proceeds of the property belong to B, against A.
If a person A gets property by a fundamental mistake and is under a legal obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property, then the property or its proceeds belong (to the extent of the obligation and against A) to the person entitled to restoration (person B). An intention not to make restoration is an intention to permanently deprive B of the property or the proceeds, and an appropriation of the property or proceeds without B’s consent. A fundamental mistake in this situation means either a mistake about the identity of the person getting the property, a mistake about the essential nature of the property or a mistake about the amount of any money (if the person getting the money is aware of the mistake when getting the money).
Q: How is it determined that I had the intention of permanently depriving another person of their property?
A: It will be found that you had the intention of permanently depriving another person of their property if the prosecution can prove that you appropriated property belonging to another person without meaning them to permanently lose their property and you intended to treat the property as your own to dispose of anyway, regardless of the owner’s rights over the property.
Taking property with the intention to return it to the owner in due course would of course not meet this element of the offence.
It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether actions taken are considered an attempt to treat the property as one’s own to dispose of.
For example, if you borrow or lend property belonging to another, the borrowing or lending can amount to treating the property as your own to dispose of regardless of the rights of the person lending the property to you. Nevertheless, you can only be seen as intending to permanently deprive if the borrowing or the lending is for a period and, in circumstances, equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Further, if you have possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another person, and you part with the property under a condition about its return that you may not be able to carry out, and that parting has been done for your own purposes and without the other person’s (the owner’s) authority, then that parting can be seen as treating the property as your own to dispose of, regardless of the owner’s rights.
There are also other circumstantial situations in which you may be considered by the courts to have intentionally permanently deprived someone else of property. A skilled criminal defence lawyer will diligently work to counter any circumstantial situations where you may be perceived as intentionally permanently depriving someone else of property.
Securing a good lawyer is of paramount importance when facing a conviction of robbery in the ACT. Your lawyer will develop a tailored defence strategy aimed at challenging the prosecution’s case.
Q: What constitutes ‘property’?
A: The legal definition for property is quite broad. It includes any property of a tangible nature, including electricity, gas, water, a wild creature that is tamed or ordinarily kept in someone’s possession, and any organ or part of a human body or substance extracted from a human body.
Q: What is the legal definition of ‘dishonest’?
A: The legal definition of a dishonest act refers to what would be considered as dishonest as per the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
However, taking property belonging to another is not dishonest if you believe that the person to whom the property belongs could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps (this does not apply if you held the property as a trustee or personal representative).
Furthermore, taking someone else’s property can still be dishonest even if you or another person is willing to pay for it.
Determining whether you acted dishonestly is up to the trier of fact.
Q: What does it mean to ‘appropriate property’?
A: For someone to appropriate property, they must have assumed any of the rights of an owner to ownership, possession or control of the property, without the consent of a person to whom the property belongs.
If you came by the property (innocently or not) without committing theft, then appropriation occurs when, without any consent from the owner, you keep it or deal with it as the owner of the property.
If you receive property from a person in good faith, and then assume the rights of the owner that you believed were transferred to you with the property, then you cannot be found to have appropriated property due to a defect in the transferor’s title.
Q: What if it is unclear if the property belonged to someone else?
A: Many factors can make it unclear if the property belongs to someone else. If the property belongs to two or more people, then a reference to one of the people to whom the property belongs can be taken as a reference to each of them.
If property is subject to a trust, then the person to whom the property belongs can include anyone who has a right to enforce the trust. Further, an intention to defeat the trust is an intention to deprive any such person of the property.
Property of a corporation solely belongs to the corporation despite a vacancy in the corporation.
If a person A receives property from or on account of someone else (person B) and is under a legal obligation to B to retain and deal with the property or its proceeds in a particular way, then the property or proceeds of the property belong to B, against A.
If a person A gets property by a fundamental mistake and is under a legal obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property, then the property or its proceeds belong (to the extent of the obligation and against A) to the person entitled to restoration (person B). An intention not to make restoration is an intention to permanently deprive B of the property or the proceeds, and an appropriation of the property or proceeds without B’s consent. A fundamental mistake in this situation means either a mistake about the identity of the person getting the property, a mistake about the essential nature of the property or a mistake about the amount of any money (if the person getting the money is aware of the mistake when getting the money).
Q: How is it determined that I had the intention of permanently depriving another person of their property?
A: It will be found that you had the intention of permanently depriving another person of their property if the prosecution can prove that you appropriated property belonging to another person without meaning them to permanently lose their property and you intended to treat the property as your own to dispose of anyway, regardless of the owner’s rights over the property.
It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether actions taken are considered an attempt to treat the property as one’s own to dispose of.
For example, if you borrow or lend property belonging to another, the borrowing or lending can amount to treating the property as your own to dispose of regardless of the rights of the person lending the property to you. Nevertheless, you can only be seen as intending to permanently deprive if the borrowing or the lending is for a period and, in circumstances, equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Further, if you have possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another person, and you part with the property under a condition about its return that you may not be able to carry out, and that parting has been done for your own purposes and without the other person’s (the owner’s) authority, then that parting can be seen as treating the property as your own to dispose of, regardless of the owner’s rights.
There are also other circumstantial situations in which you may be considered by the courts to have intentionally permanently deprived someone else of property.
Q: What is the legal threshold for using force?
A: Using force can be defined as contact with another person that occurs without their consent and is thus deemed unlawful. The use of force could include the use of a weapon, the use of physical strength or violence as is sufficient to overcome, restrain, or injure a person, or physical harm sufficient to coerce or compel submission by the victim. It is important to note that if you used an offensive weapon, you will likely be charged with aggravated robbery rather than robbery. A good criminal defence lawyer is indispensable in such circumstances.
Q: What is the legal threshold for threatening to use force?
A: You may still be found guilty of robbery if you threaten to use force on the victim. Even if no physical contact is made with the victim, if your words or actions cause the victim to fear or apprehend that you will use force on them, then you have met the criteria for threatening use of force.
In challenging the prosecutor’s case for a conviction of aggravated robbery, a skilled lawyer will employ a tailored approach designed to undermine the prosecution’s evidence and arguments.
Q: How do the police prove robbery?
A: Robbery is proved if it can be found that you committed theft (dishonestly appropriated property belonging to someone else with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property) and that before, during or after the theft, you used force on someone else or threatened to use force then and there on someone else with the intent to commit theft or escape from the scene of the crime.
Q: What constitutes ‘property’?
A: The legal definition of property is quite broad. It includes any property of a tangible nature, including electricity, gas, water, a wild creature that is tamed or ordinarily kept in someone’s possession, and any organ or part of a human body or substance extracted from a human body.
Q: What is the legal definition of ‘dishonest’?
A: The legal definition of a dishonest act refers to what would be considered as dishonest as per the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
However, taking property belonging to another is not dishonest if you believe that the person to whom the property belongs could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps (this does not apply if you held the property as a trustee or personal representative).
Furthermore, taking someone else’s property can still be dishonest even if you or another person is willing to pay for it.
Determining whether you acted dishonestly is up to the trier of fact.
Q: What does it mean to appropriate property?
A: For someone to appropriate property, they must have assumed any of the rights of an owner to ownership, possession or control of the property, without the consent of a person to whom the property belongs.
If you came by the property (innocently or not) without committing theft, then appropriation occurs when, without any consent from the owner, you keep it or deal with it as the owner of the property.
If you receive property from a person in good faith, and then assume the rights of the owner that you believed were transferred to you with the property, then you cannot be found to have appropriated property due to a defect in the transferor’s title.
Q: What if it is unclear if the property belonged to someone else?
A: Many factors can make it unclear if the property belongs to someone else. If the property belongs to two or more people, then a reference to one of the people to whom the property belongs can be taken as a reference to each of them.
If property is subject to a trust, then the person to whom the property belongs can include anyone who has a right to enforce the trust. Further, an intention to defeat the trust is an intention to deprive any such person of the property.
Property of a corporation solely belongs to the corporation despite a vacancy in the corporation.
If person A receives property from or on account of someone else (person B) and is under a legal obligation to B to retain and deal with the property or its proceeds in a particular way, then the property or proceeds of the property belong to B, against A.
If person A gets property by a fundamental mistake and is under a legal obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property, then the property or its proceeds belong (to the extent of the obligation and against A) to the person entitled to restoration (person B). An intention not to make restoration is an intention to permanently deprive B of the property or the proceeds, and an appropriation of the property or proceeds without B’s consent. A fundamental mistake in this situation means either a mistake about the identity of the person getting the property, a mistake about the essential nature of the property or a mistake about the amount of any money (if the person getting the money is aware of the mistake when getting the money).
Q: How is it determined that I had the intention of permanently depriving another person of their property?
A: It will be found that you had the intention of permanently depriving another person of their property if the prosecution can prove that you appropriated property belonging to another person without meaning them to permanently lose their property and you intended to treat the property as your own to dispose of anyway, regardless of the owner’s rights over the property.
It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether actions taken are considered an attempt to treat the property as one’s own to dispose of.
For example, if you borrow or lend property belonging to another, the borrowing or lending can amount to treating the property as your own to dispose of regardless of the rights of the person lending the property to you. Nevertheless, you can only be seen as intending to permanently deprive if the borrowing or the lending is for a period and, in circumstances, equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Further, if you have possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another person, and you part with the property under a condition about its return that you may not be able to carry out, and that parting has been done for your own purposes and without the other person’s (the owner’s) authority, then that parting can be seen as treating the property as your own to dispose of, regardless of the owner’s rights.
There are also other circumstantial situations in which you may be considered by the courts to have intentionally permanently deprived someone else of property.
Q: What is the legal threshold for using force?
A: Using force can be defined as contact with another person that occurs without their consent and is thus deemed unlawful. The use of force could include the use of a weapon, the use of physical strength or violence as is sufficient to overcome, restrain, or injure a person, or physical harm sufficient to coerce or compel submission by the victim. It is important to note that if you used an offensive weapon, you will likely be charged with aggravated robbery rather than robbery.
Q: What is the legal threshold for threatening to use force?
A: You may still be found guilty of robbery if you threaten to use force on the victim. Even if no physical contact is made with the victim, if your words or actions cause the victim to fear or apprehend that you will use force on them, then you have met the criteria for threatening use of force. A lawyer could challenge the allegation of threatening use of force by:
Q: What is an offensive weapon?
A: An offensive weapon, as per the Criminal Code, includes:
Engage a lawyer immediately when facing burglary charges. They protect your rights from arrest, guide you during police questioning, and conduct investigations to build a robust defence. A lawyer advises on legal proceedings, negotiates plea deals, and represents you in court. Their expertise is crucial to minimizing consequences and ensuring fair treatment throughout the legal process.
Q: What is the legal definition of a ‘trespass’?
A: The court defines trespass as the direct and wrongful interference by a person with another person’s property or goods. To be wrongful, it must be done voluntarily and without authorisation. There must also be a direct link between the trespasser’s actions and interference with another person’s property or goods.
Q: What is the legal definition of a ‘building’?
A: Under the Criminal Code, a building is defined as a part of any building, a mobile home or caravan or a structure (whether or not moveable), vehicle, or vessel, that is used, designed or adapted for residential purposes.
Q: How does the prosecution prove the intention of burglary?
A: Police can prove that you intended to commit theft, an offence causing harm or an offence causing damage if they can prove that you meant to engage in that conduct, and it was not an accident.
Q: What constitutes committing theft?
A: Under the Criminal Code, committing theft is seen as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to someone else with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property. The element of dishonesty is judged in relation to what would be considered as dishonest as per the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people. It is up to the trier of fact in the matter to determine whether or not you acted in dishonesty.
To appropriate property, you must have assumed any of the rights of an owner to ownership, possession or control of the property, without the consent of a person to whom the property belongs.
To intentionally permanently deprive someone of their property is to appropriate property belonging to another person without meaning them to permanently lose their property and you intended to treat the property as your own to dispose of anyway, regardless of the owner’s rights over the property.
Q: What is the legal definition of ‘property’?
A: The legal definition of property is quite broad. It includes any property of a tangible nature, including electricity, gas, water, a wild creature that is tamed or ordinarily kept in someone’s possession, and any organ or part of a human body or substance extracted from a human body.
Q: What constitutes ‘harm’?
A: Harm, as per the Criminal Code, can include both physical harm and psychological harm. Physical harm to a person includes unconsciousness, pain, disfigurement, infection with a disease and any physical contact with the person that they might reasonably object to in the circumstances. Harm to a person’s mental health includes psychological harm but does not include mere ordinary emotional reactions such as distress, grief, fear or anger.
It is irrelevant whether the harm is permanent or temporary. Harm does not include being subjected to any force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable incidental to social interaction or to life in the community.
Q: What constitutes ‘damage’?
A: The Criminal Code considers damage in relation to property as including destroying the property, causing the physical loss of the property by interfering with the property, causing loss of a use or function of the property by interfering with the property, defacing the property, obliterating or making illegible the whole or part of the document if the property is a document, harming or killing animals if the property is an animal or cutting it from the land if the property is a plant or other thing forming part of land.
The prosecutor in an aggravated burglary case must prove either that the defendant committed burglary with one or more other people or that they committed burglary while carrying an offensive weapon. The prosecutor’s role is to present evidence and arguments to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;
Your criminal defence lawyer’s role is to challenge the prosecution’s case and protect the defendant’s rights. They may question the evidence presented, cross-examine witnesses, and present counterarguments or defences to refute the prosecution’s claims. Ultimately, your defence lawyer aims to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case and secure the best possible outcome for you, the defendant, whether through acquittal, reduced charges, or a favourable plea bargain.
Q: What is the legal definition of a ‘trespass’?
A: The court defines trespass as the direct and wrongful interference by a person with another person’s property or goods. To be wrongful, it must be done voluntarily and without authorisation. There must also be a direct link between the trespasser’s actions and interference with another person’s property or goods.
Q: What is the legal definition of a ‘building’?
A: Under the Criminal Code, a building is defined as a part of any building, a mobile home or caravan or a structure (whether or not moveable), vehicle, or vessel, that is used, designed or adapted for residential purposes.
Q: What constitutes committing theft?
A: Under the Criminal Code, committing theft is seen as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to someone else with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property. The element of dishonesty is judged in relation to what would be considered as dishonest as per the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people. It is up to the trier of fact in the matter to determine whether or not you acted in dishonesty.
To appropriate property, you must have assumed any of the rights of an owner to ownership, possession or control of the property, without the consent of a person to whom the property belongs.
To intentionally permanently deprive someone of their property is to appropriate property belonging to another person without meaning them to permanently lose their property and you intended to treat the property as your own to dispose of anyway, regardless of the owner’s rights over the property.
Q: What is the legal definition of ‘property’?
A: The legal definition of property is quite broad. It includes any property of a tangible nature, including electricity, gas, water, a wild creature that is tamed or ordinarily kept in someone’s possession, and any organ or part of a human body or substance extracted from a human body.
Q: What constitutes ‘harm’?
A: Harm, as per the Criminal Code, can include both physical harm and psychological harm. Physical harm to a person includes unconsciousness, pain, disfigurement, infection with a disease and any physical contact with the person that they might reasonably object to in the circumstances. Harm to a person’s mental health includes psychological harm but does not include mere ordinary emotional reactions such as distress, grief, fear or anger.
It is irrelevant whether the harm is permanent or temporary. Harm does not include being subjected to any force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable incidental to social interaction or to life in the community.
Q: What constitutes ‘damage’?
A: The Criminal Code considers damage in relation to property as including destroying the property, causing the physical loss of the property by interfering with the property, causing loss of a use or function of the property by interfering with the property, defacing the property, obliterating or making illegible the whole or part of the document if the property is a document, harming or killing animals if the property is an animal or cutting it from the land if the property is a plant or other thing forming part of land.
Q: What is an offensive weapon?
A: An offensive weapon, as per the Criminal Code, includes:
The seriousness of charges involving offensive weapons, such as in cases of aggravated burglary, warrants the involvement of a skilled criminal defence lawyer.
The prosecutor must prove that you:
Your lawyer will work to challenge the prosecutor’s case.
Q: What is stolen property?
A: Stolen property is property that has been appropriated. For someone to appropriate property, they must have assumed any of the rights of an owner to ownership, possession or control of the property, without the consent of a person to whom the property belongs.
If you came by the property (innocently or not) without committing theft, then appropriation occurs when, without any consent from the owner, you keep it or deal with it as the owner of the property.
If you receive property from a person in good faith, and then assume the rights of the owner that you believed were transferred to you with the property, then you cannot be found to have appropriated property due to a defect in the transferor’s title.
Q: What does it mean to receive property dishonestly?
A: The legal definition of a dishonest act refers to what would be considered as dishonest as per the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
Receiving property belonging to another is not dishonest if you believe that the person to whom the property belongs could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps (this does not apply to you holding the property as a trustee or personal representative).
Furthermore, receiving someone else’s property can still be dishonest even if you or another person is willing to pay for it.
Determining whether you acted dishonestly is up to the trier of fact.
Q: How does the prosecution prove I knew or believed the property to be stolen?
A: The prosecution must prove belief or knowledge that the property was stolen for you to be found guilty. Belief and knowledge are proven if the prosecution can show beyond reasonable doubt that you were aware that the property was stolen.
Q: What are the alternative verdicts for receiving?
A: Section 371 of the Criminal Code deals with the alternative verdict for receiving. If you are on trial for receiving and the trier of fact is not satisfied that you committed the offence, but they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed an offence of theft or obtaining property by deception, then you may be found guilty for that offence, but only if you have received procedural fairness. This effect can also occur vice versa.
Q: What does it mean to ‘dishonestly’ take a motor vehicle?
A: The legal definition of a dishonest act refers to what would be considered as dishonest as per the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
Taking a motor vehicle belonging to another is not dishonest if you believe that the person to whom the property belongs could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps (this does not apply if you held the property as a trustee or personal representative).
Taking someone’s motor vehicle can still be dishonest even if you or another person is willing to pay for it.
Determining whether you acted dishonestly is up to the trier of fact.
Q: What does ‘belonging to someone else’ mean?
A: A vehicle will be considered to belong to someone if they have possession or control over the vehicle or have a proprietary right or interest in it (other than an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest, or from a constructive trust).
Q: What constitutes a motor vehicle?
A: Under the Road Transport (General) Act 1999, a motor vehicle is a vehicle built to be propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle but does not include a personal mobility device.
Q: Are there any defences that apply to me?
A: A skilled lawyer will meticulously examine the circumstances surrounding the case to identify the most effective line of defence. You cannot be found guilty of taking a motor vehicle without consent if you did so under the defence of lawful possession. You cannot be criminally responsible for an offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent if you are employed by, or appointed as a member of, a law enforcement or justice agency, if you are required to provide technical, professional expert services to a law enforcement or justice agency, or if you are a legal practitioner or a person employed by or to required to provide technical, professional or expert services to a legal practitioner. Furthermore, the possession must be for a law enforcement purpose and must be reasonable in the circumstances for that purpose.
Possession of a motor vehicle without consent is for a law enforcement purpose if the possession is necessary for, or to assist in, enforcing a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, monitoring compliance with, or investigating a contravention of, a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory, or the administration of justice.
Q: What is the alternative verdict to taking a motor vehicle without consent?
A: Section 370 of the Criminal Code deals with alternative verdicts for the theft and taking of motor vehicles without consent. This section applies if, while you are on trial for taking a motor vehicle without consent, the trier of fact is not satisfied that you committed that offence but is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed theft. In this situation you may then be found guilty of that offence, however only if you have been given procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.
Your lawyer might challenge the prosecutor by:
Q: What does it mean to ‘dishonestly’ drive or ride a motor vehicle?
A: The legal definition of a dishonest act refers to what would be considered as dishonest as per the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
Driving or riding a motor vehicle belonging to another is not dishonest if you believe that the person to whom the property belongs could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps (this does not apply if you held the property as a trustee or personal representative).
Driving or riding someone’s motor vehicle can still be dishonest even if you or another person is willing to pay for it.
Determining whether you acted dishonestly is up to the trier of fact.
Q: What does ‘belonging to someone else’ mean?
A: A vehicle will be considered to belong to someone if they have possession or control over the vehicle or have a proprietary right or interest in it (other than an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest, or from a constructive trust).
Q: What constitutes a motor vehicle under the law?
A: As per the Road Transport (General) Act 1999, a motor vehicle is a vehicle built to be propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle but does not include a personal mobility device.
Q: What constitutes ‘driving’ and ‘riding’ under the law?
A: As per the Road Transport (General) Act 1999, driving a vehicle includes being in control of the steering, movement or propulsion of the vehicle, if the vehicle is a trailer then drawing or towing the vehicle and if the vehicle can be ridden then riding the vehicle. Under the same act, riding a vehicle is being in control of the vehicle.
Q: What is the alternative verdict to taking a motor vehicle without consent?
A: Section 370 of the Criminal Code deals with alternative verdicts for the theft and driving or riding of motor vehicles without consent. This section applies if, while you are on trial for driving or riding a motor vehicle without consent, the trier of fact is not satisfied that you committed that offence but is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed theft. In this situation you may then be found guilty of that offence, however only if you have been given procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.
A skilled lawyer can leverage their expertise to explore alternative verdicts and legal strategies that may benefit you.
Engaging a lawyer early is advisable when facing charges of obtaining property by deception in the ACT.
Q: What does it mean to ‘obtain’ property?
A: A person obtains property if the person:
Q: What does it mean to dishonestly obtain property?
A: The legal definition of a dishonest act refers to what would be considered as dishonest as per the standards of ordinary people and as one known to the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
However, obtaining property belonging to another is not dishonest if you believe that the person to whom the property belongs could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps (this does not apply if you held the property as a trustee or personal representative).
Obtaining someone else’s property can still be dishonest even if you or another person is willing to pay for it.
It is up to the trier of fact in the matter to determine whether or not you acted in dishonesty.
Q: What is meant by ‘deception’ under the law?
A: Deception means an intentional or reckless deception, whether by words or other conduct, and whether as to fact or law. Deception further includes a deception about the intention of the person using the deception or anyone else, and conduct by a person that causes a computer, a machine or an electronic device to make a response that the person is not authorised to cause to do.
Q: How does the prosecution prove that the property belonged to someone else?
A: Property will be considered to be belonging to someone if they have possession or control over the property, or have a proprietary right or interest in it (other than an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest, or from a constructive trust).
A lawyer can challenge the prosecution’s claim that property belonged to someone else by disputing ownership, questioning possession or control, asserting proprietary rights, exploring equitable interests, and challenging evidence presented.
Q: What if it is unclear if the property belonged to someone else?
A: Many factors can make it unclear if the property belongs to someone else. If the property belongs to two or more people, then a reference to one of the people to whom the property belongs can be taken as a reference to each of them.
If property is subject to a trust, then the person to whom the property belongs can include anyone who has a right to enforce the trust. Further, an intention to defeat the trust is an intention to deprive any such person of the property.
Property of a corporation solely belongs to the corporation despite a vacancy in the corporation.
If person A receives property from or on account of someone else (person B) and is under a legal obligation to B to retain and deal with the property or its proceeds in a particular way, then the property or proceeds of the property belong to B, against A.
If person A gets property by a fundamental mistake and is under a legal obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property, then the property or its proceeds belong (to the extent of the obligation and against A) to the person entitled to restoration (person B). An intention not to make restoration is an intention to permanently deprive B of the property or the proceeds, and an appropriation of the property or proceeds without B’s consent. A fundamental mistake in this situation means either a mistake about the identity of the person getting the property, a mistake about the essential nature of the property or a mistake about the amount of any money (if the person getting the money is aware of the mistake when getting the money).
Q: How do the prosecution prove that you had the intention of permanently depriving someone else of their property?
A: It will be found that you had the intention of permanently depriving another person of their property if the prosecution can prove that you appropriated property belonging to another person without meaning them to permanently lose their property and you intended to treat the property as your own to dispose of anyway, regardless of the owner’s rights over the property.
Taking property with an intention to return it to the owner in due course would of course not meet this element of the offence.
It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether actions taken are considered an attempt to treat the property as one’s own to dispose of.
For example, if you borrow or lend property belonging to another, the borrowing or lending can amount to treating the property as your own to dispose of regardless of the rights of the person lending the property to you. Nevertheless, you can only be seen as intending to permanently deprive if the borrowing or the lending is for a period and, in circumstances, equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Further, if you have possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another person, and you part with the property under a condition about its return that you may not be able to carry out, and that parting has been done for your own purposes and without the other person’s (the owner’s) authority, then that parting can be seen as treating the property as your own to dispose of, regardless of the owner’s rights.
There are also other circumstantial situations in which you may be considered by the courts to have intentionally permanently deprived someone else of property.
Q: What alternative verdicts are available?
Section 371 of the Criminal Code deals with the alternative verdict for charges of theft or obtaining property by deception and deceiving. If you are on trial for theft or obtaining property by deception and the trier of fact is not satisfied that you committed the offence, but they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed an offence of receiving, then you may be found guilty for that offence, but only if you have received procedural fairness. This effect can also occur vice versa, wherein while on trial for receiving, the trier of fact may find you guilty of the alternative verdicts of theft or obtaining property by deception, provided you have been given procedural fairness in the finding of guilt.
Finally, section 372 of the Criminal Code states in a trial for theft, a trier of fact may find the defendant guilty of obtaining property by deception if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed that offence and if the defendant has been given procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt. This effect can also occur vice versa, wherein while on trial for obtaining property by deception, the trier of fact may find you guilty of theft, provided you have been given procedural fairness in the finding of guilt.
Unlike the prosecutor, whose job is to prove guilt, your defence lawyer must scrutinise every aspect of the case, searching for weaknesses, inconsistencies, and opportunities to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence.
Q: What is a document for the purposes of this offence?
A: For this offence, a document is considered to be anything on which there are figures, marks, numbers, perforations, symbols, or anything else that can be responded to by a computer, machine or electronic device, a credit card or debit card, or a formal or informal document.
Q: What is a false document for the purposes of this offence?
A: A document is considered to be false only if the document, or any part of the document, purports:
Q: What is included in making a false document?
A: Making a false document, under this offence, includes changing the document so as to make It a false document, regardless of whether it was already false in some other way.
Q: What does it mean to induce someone to accept that a document is genuine?
A: Under the Criminal Code 2002, a reference to inducing a person to accept a document as genuine includes a reference to causing a computer, machine or electronic device to respond to the document as if it were genuine. It is not necessary to prove an intention to induce a particular person to accept the false document as genuine.
Q: What is meant by ‘obtain a gain’?
A: Under the Criminal Code, obtain includes obtaining for someone else, and inducing a third person to do something that results in someone else obtaining. Gain refers to a gain in property, whether temporary or permanent, or a gain by way of supply of services, including keeping what one already has, under the act.
Q: What is meant by ‘cause a loss’?
A: Under the Criminal Code, to ‘cause a loss’ means causing someone else to lose something. This includes the loss of property, whether temporary or permanent and also includes situations where a person does not receive something they would otherwise be entitled to.
Q: What is meant by a ‘public duty’?
A: Under the Crimes Act 1900, the exercise of public duty means a power, authority, duty or function that is conferred on a person as the holder of a public office, or that a person holds himself or herself out as having the holder of a public office. A holder of a public office, or a public official, is a person who has public official functions, or acts in a public official capacity, and includes the following:
Money laundering is a serious crime with significant penalties, including hefty fines and lengthy imprisonment. Given the complexity of the laws surrounding money laundering and the severity of the consequences, it’s important to employ a skilled defence lawyer early.
Q: What does it mean to “deal” with money?
A: The threshold for it to be proven that you have dealt with money is not a high one. To deal with money or other property could be to receive, possess, conceal or dispose of money or some other property. This also includes bringing any money or other property into the ACT.
Q: What are ‘proceeds of crime’?
A: Proceeds of crime are any property or money derived or realised, directly or indirectly, by anyone from the commission of an offence punishable by imprisonment for longer than 12 months. The proceeds of crime can also be any money or property derived or realised, directly or indirectly, by anyone from acts or omissions that happened outside of the ACT, and would, if they had happened in the ACFT, have been an offence punishable by imprisonment for longer than 12 months.
Q: What is considered an ‘unlawful activity’?
A: Unlawful activity can be any act or omission that is an offence against the law of the Territory, the Commonwealth, a State, another Territory or a foreign country.
Q: Can I still get in trouble if this didn’t happen in the ACT?
A: Yes, you can face charges for money laundering regardless of where the offence occurred, even if it’s outside the ACT or Australia. In such cases, it’s crucial to seek the expertise of a criminal defence lawyer who specialises in handling cross-jurisdictional cases. They can navigate the complexities of international law, coordinate with legal authorities in different jurisdictions, and mount a robust defence tailored to the unique circumstances of your case. If you’re facing allegations of money laundering, contact our criminal defence lawyer service today for expert legal representation and guidance.
Hugo Law Group is a law firm that is focused on protecting and defending your rights. Drawing on decades of experience, our team of criminal lawyers will guide you through the legal process, providing comprehensive, honest and strategic advice – qualities that give us our renowned reputation.
Whether you want to plead not guilty, you are looking to secure the best possible sentence, or a loved one wants to apply for bail, it is essential to have an experienced team of criminal defence lawyers in your corner.
Seeking comprehensive and practical advice at an early stage will best ensure your rights and interests are protected. Our lawyers will properly prepare and present your case to assist you in getting the best possible outcome.
At Hugo Law Group, we will clearly explain what your rights and obligations are so that you can make informed decisions about how to deal with the police and the court process.
Even if you have not yet been charged with a criminal offence, you should seek advice from a lawyer at an early stage to ensure that your rights and interests are protected.
Hugo Law Group is the market leader in criminal defence law, providing exceptional representation to people facing serious criminal charges.
As leaders in criminal defence, we know that every story has two sides. We defend yours.
Get in contact with us today or feel free to call us at 02 9696 1361 (Sydney), 02 5104 9640 (Canberra), or 08 6255 6909 (Perth) and find out how we can help you.