VIC Accused of Shoplifting - What to Do Now?

[Gail Sears]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it.

But what would happen if the camera/s failed to pick up I was back in the store and put the item back?

A friend who works in surveillance camera installation told me cameras can rotate and easily miss 20 seconds and even if the are fixed, they aren't foolproof! I don't know if it's true or not, but would the police rely on camera footage of me re-entering the store, or does it not help them either way?

I say this because I doubt very much whether my putting it back would be recorded 'cause it was so low to the ground! If they don't have a camera footage, it would hurt my case because it's what I did but I can't prove it. I guess on the other hand they can't prove I didn't.

Oh! This is so confusing! Or am I just missing some point?

 

[Iamthelaw]

The camera footage if showing you re-enter the store could be used to corroborate your evidence even if it doesn't pick up the instance where you place the item back. ie, to assert that you did in fact momentarily re-enter the store (for the purpose of giving the item back). Further, it's possible that the camera might pick up the item laying on the ground in a subsequent frame? Again, purporting to support the fact that you contend you re-entered and put the item back.

Your comments about security cameras are right. Another thing to factor into account is suppose the camera picked up the fact you re-entered and put the item back, but time passes by and the security footage is taped over (common practice)? Then perhaps it would be an idea to get your solicitor to obtain a copy of the surveillance footage 'just in case'.

One thing that does confuse me is, you say that the police arrived at your address some time later etc. How did they know who you were?

 

[Gail Sears]

Hi again!

13 days later, they arrived. They knew who I was cause I am well known in the store to the chemists and some of the staff. I have been shopping there for 8/9 years since it opened. I get my about 90% of my scripts there.

When my daughter comes from Melbourne, we go there to get certain things like body tan 'cause she reckons it's so much cheaper down here. I buy hair products and other items there. That's why I'm so upset about this. I.e they called the police, maybe they have to under the chain store's policy or something, but I was really hurt about it.

Probably stupid emotion to express but I was. We often have chats whilst I'm waiting for scripts or sometimes they've had to ring my doctor. I know 2 people who work there personally but I have no idea if they were working that day. It's a stupid thing to say but I confidently and openly put the item
In my bag, which I might add, stuck

Out of the top of my bag and made no attempt to hide it because I wasn't stealing it and I didn't think anyone would think I would or was. One thing is certain though, they'll certainly be able to verify the very strong anti panic/anxiety medication I take because I get it from there.

Really wasn't nice thing to do to me knowing my medical history. I guess there's no trust when $59.95 is concerned. As well just for your info, I've come to know, I wouldn't say "all" but most of the predominant cameras in the store over time.

I remember when the police showed me the pics of the CCTV thinking : Are you guys crazy?

If I seriously ever was crazy enough to risk my career and shoplift, I certainly wouldnt stand here in the makeup aisle and stick something in my bag. It has about three cameras, and they're the ones the public can see. And when a customer is walking out, there are cameras aimed at you and cameras over each register on either side.

I couldn't breathe so I didn't care about the exit and cameras, but yes, that's how they know me! And in case you are wondering, I've never ever been pulled up or had a bag search and my daughter spends a fortune in there! And so do I! Or did. But It does bother me that there may be no footage of me reentering and/or replacing the item because I'm pretty sure they don't have cameras of people entering, only people leaving and in the aisles and other overhead cameras.

I guess it will be up to the magistrate whom he believes. What surprises me most is the police didn't ask about the item, or why I changed my mind. Probably not relevant if they think I took it! The answer would have been that it was an expensive item and I felt like I was impulse buying whilst feeling ill. So I went to the $2 shop and bought some lavender draw liners and some lavender bags which cost $8 instead of spending $60 and I could've proven it.

Anyhow sorry for the long story. Hope this clarifies identification issue for you. Me - I'm just distressed and frustrated!! I have no one to help me through this. I'm not telling anyone, especially my daughter as she's in trimester 4 of her second degree whilst working full time. Half the town probably knows by now but I'm not discussing it, even with my best friend, 'cause after 3 hours the rumour mill in this town... I will have robbed a bank.

Instead of a chemist, I feel dreadful! Just plain ill. If I was guilty, I'd go and tell them to get it over with and accept whatever punishment given to me but I'll be damned if I'm going to plead guilty to something I didn't do. No way! Just no way!

But thanks for asking!

 

[Rod]

I think the old common law case is R v Lloyd

NB: s6(1) is the UK equivalent of s73(12).

There's a good discussion on s73(12) in R v Dardovska [2003] VSCA 4; 6 VR 628 at [31] that also makes reference to Lloyd:

In Fernandez [1996] 1 Cr.App.R. 175 Auld, L.J., speaking for the Court said – “In our view, s.6(1), which is expressed in general terms, is not limited in its application to the illustrations given by Lord Lane CJ in Lloyd. Nor, in saying that in most cases it would be unnecessary to refer to the provision, did Lord Lane suggest that it should be so limited. The critical notion, stated expressly in the first limb and incorporated by reference in the second, is whether a defendant intended ‘to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights’.

The second limb of sub-section (1), and also sub-section (2) are merely specific illustrations of the application of that notion. We consider that s.6 may apply to a person in possession or control of another’s property who, dishonestly and for his own purpose, deals with that property in such a manner that he knows he is risking its loss.​

If the store claims the item was never seen again, then the above quote is directly on point. Also see Sharp v. McCormick [1986] V.R. 869 for more on s73(12).

Either way, the police will do what they want regardless of what we post here.

OP - you potentially have conflicting aims - protecting teaching certification v pleading not guilty on principle.

If you do get taken to court, and that is not certain at this point, you need to decide what is of most importance to you.

 

[Iamthelaw]

I think you're misunderstanding the effect of s73(12) - s73(12) is introduced in instances where an accused acts regardless to the rights of the owner. It is very rarely introduced into a charge and would only be relevant in certain specific circumstances (cases in which we call conditional intention - you won't find that in textbooks).

In such cases, the accused will only be deemed to have an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property if the borrowing or lending was for a period, or in circumstances, which made it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal - That is the effect of (12).

Again, placing something into a bag and returning it mere minutes later won't amount to an intention to permanently deprive.

 

[Rod]

I agree s73(12) is rare and has limited application. Not convinced though it is limited to borrowing and lending.

 

[Beetle]

Hi Gail.
I was just reading your posts and wondered what the outcome was?