LAW116-writing and communication for legal professionals

LEGAL MEMORANDUM Recipient : Jenni Author : Date : 24 March 20 20 Re : larceny offence. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s117 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Both aspects of o ffence are included in his guidelines. You don't need to see any of them in depth in most situations. To validate the prosecution, it is appropriate to remind the jurors that it is not necessary to show that any of the items (money or goods) listed in the indictment were stolen. Jenn i was charged with robbery. She hid the codeine in the baby carriage's bottom and took six codeine packets from the pharmacy. Jenni is 18 years old and has previously used ice. She has recently been interested with family and community services (FACS), and she is concerned that she may be responsible for children. She tells you she needs to confess to stealing. Except expressly mentioned in the 1900 Crime Act (NSW), a person who commits a robbery crime or is convicted for theft under this Act is sentenced to five years in jail. BRIEF SUMMARY OF FACTS CHARGE: yes Jenni has been charged with larceny (theft) pharmacy , an offence against s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The charge is: THAT on 24th March 2020, Jenni stole 6 boxes of codeine from a pharmacy by putting it in the bottom of her pram . You should assume that even if the initial taking of the goods was innocent, a later dealing with goods with intent to permanently deprive the owner of them amounts to larceny. WITNESSES: The witness for the prosecution is an employee at pharmacy . The witness for the defen ce is the accused, Jenni.  First dot point was:” the purpose of sentencing “ Can you please highlight in yellow where you have written the purpose of sentencing? - highlighted in yellow  Second dot point was “the reasons for the changes in the sentencing options available. Can you please highlight that part in green? Highlighted in green  3rd dot point: “you should select one aggravating or mitigating factor under crimes (sentencing procedure) act 1999 (NSW) s 21A that might be relevant to your client’s c ase and explain that factor and how the courts have interpreted it. Can you please highlight that part in blue? Have you done footnotes? And AGLC 4 referencing Can you please highlight them in red ? Highlighted in red Thanks LEGISLATION: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Section 117 Punishment for larceny Purpose - Whosoever commits larceny, or any indictable offence by this Act made punishable like larceny, shall, except in the cases hereinafter otherwise provided for, be liable to imprisonment for five years. The act of taking and transferring another person's property without their consent in order to permanently claim possession of it is known as theft. The theory of burglary offences is also the foundation for even more extreme crimes in New Sout h Wales, such as robbery (theft from persons) and trespass. Fraud is described as the fraudulent possession of another's property, the acquisition of financial gain, or the incorporation of fraud to the detriment of others' financial well -being. Using some one else's credit card and PIN to steal cash from an ATM is a simple form of theft. Section 117 of the 1900 Crime Act defines theft as a crime (NSW). The maximum punishment for stealing is determined by the value of the stolen goods. When it is said to be engaged in shoplifting, this is a felony that is frequently investigated. If the value of the stolen goods is less than $300, the police have the right to issue a fine warning, which puts a $300 fine on robbery. The act of taking and transferring another p erson's property without their consent in order to permanently claim possession of it is known as theft. The most fundamental and least severe of all offences, including robbery, is this. When you steal from someone or hack into private premises, you are c ommitting a much more serious offence. The police must prove the following reasons to be accused of robbery in New South Wales: You have land that does not belong to you. You must remove your belongings. and Property acquisition cannot take place without t he permission of the owner The police must also establish the following "spiritual components." You bought the property with the intention of enslaving the owner for the rest of his life. You must purchase the land (without having a reasonable confidence t hat you have the legitimate right to do so) without making a good faith claim to the right. and Your land has been stripped from you in an untrustworthy manner. The defence of possessing properties with the goal of returning them later is, however, exclude d by section 118 of the 1900 Crime Act (NSW) 1. When anyone discovers "shoplifting," for example, these components are filled. When a person steals a chocolate bar from a supermarket without paying for it, the chocolate bar belongs to the supermarket and is taken away by the shoplifter without the supermarket's permission (this is the business of the supermarket). Furthermore, because there was additional proof that shoplifters were not going to steal the chocolate bar permanently from the store and that the y genuinely felt they had the legitimate right to take the chocolate bar, there was usually no suggestion. It was not against the law to eat chocolate bars. The police must show that the land in question was acquired without you stating the title to the property in good conscience. As a result, if there is proof in the police report that you have a genuine conviction that you have the right to possess the land, or if there is evidence that you should add this genuine belief, not claiming can be detrimental to your interests. It's worth noting, though, that in order to obtain the properties in question, you would believe in legal qualifications rather than moral qualifications. You will have legal protection if you truly think you own property. If property ha s been wrongfully seized is a matter for the judge to determine, depending on the existing expectations of common decent citizens. As a consequence, debates about your integrity or dishonesty in taking an object would be heavily contingent on the condition s in your individual situation. The idea that you planned to return the property cannot justify an acquittal of its own, but if it brings colour to your unsavoury conduct in a truthful manner, there might be grounds for acquittal debate. You can be convict ed of an offence to replace the wrongful use if it is found that you have purchased the property honestly but there is suspicion that you have wrongfully retained it for your own use under section 124 of the Criminal Code (NSW). Where it comes to the first part, the issue is whether the threat was made, and if so, what led the claimant to think it would be carried out. Threats may be either overt or implied. It makes no difference whether people or their families are not in danger. What matters is if the in dividual really believed that if he did not comply with the subpoena, he or his family would face an immediate danger of death or serious injury 2. The court’s decision The threat's surrounding situation is the second thing to consider. The meaning of the t hreats, the individual who carried out the threats, the accused's understanding of the person who carried out the threats, and any factors that may impair a reasonable person's reaction to the threats will all be considered by the Court when determining th is aspect. In essence, the second factor measure will put an average human person with the same age and gender in the same set of situations as the accused, and the rational person will succumb to the threats and commit offences. 1 Willie Johannes Clack, "A Comparison Of Rural Crimes In Australia (NSW) And South Africa" (2019) 9(2) International Journal of Rural Law and Policy . 2 Owais Mumtaz, "FCR: A Foolish Crimes Regulations Act" [2016] SSRN Electronic Journal . When it comes to the third factor, the question is whether there are any alternatives to committing a crime. And if you fairly suspect the threat will be carried out, you will not be able to maximise your protection against intimidation if you will escape the threat in other ways. The defence would not be conducted if the public prosecution disproves any of the three elements listed above. If they are unable to disprove all of the elements, the suspect should be found not guilty. Bibliography Clack, Willie Johannes, "A Comparison Of Rural Crimes In Australia (NSW) And South Africa" (2019) 9(2) International Journal of Rural Law and Policy Mumtaz, Owais, "FCR: A Foolish Crimes Regulations Act" [2016] SSRN Electronic Journal