Doogue + George

Application for Diversion – Theft

Application for Diversion – Theft

Published · Updated

This is a case study on an application for diversion for Theft. The client had no previous court history and was gainfully employed. Through his employment, he was also supporting his wife and young children.
Our client was charged with stealing several grocery items. He was 42 years old at the time of the offence and it happened during a period where our client reported immense anxiety. The property value of the items was less than $150.
 

We represented the client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on a charge of Theft.

A written submission was made to the police officer who charged our client – that he consider referring the matter for a court diversion. The benefit of a successful application for diversion for Theft is that an eligible accused avoids a criminal record.

For our client, a court record, even on the basis of a without conviction outcome would have made his intention to apply for permanent residency significantly harder.

In support of our written submission to the police, a psychological report was provided. This report outlined the operative circumstances of the offence and our client’s participation in counselling to address his difficulties with depression and anxiety. This report was also utilised for the diversion hearing at court.

The prosecution agreed to refer our client for diversion and the case then proceeded as a diversion assessment hearing.

Material was placed before the presiding magistrate that evidenced our client’s previous good character, the circumstances of the offence, and the constructive steps that our client had taken since the offending to ensure that he does not re-offend. The magistrate was persuaded to grant diversion.

As a result of the successful application for diversion for Theft, our client avoided a disclosable criminal history, which was the objective of him securing our firm for his court representation.
 
Elements of Theft:

  • The accused appropriated property belonging to another.
  • The accused did so with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.
  • The accused acted dishonestly.


DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 11/10/2019