Shoptheft, Obtain Financial Advantage, Obtain Property by Deception – Diversion

The client attended a large retailer and purchased an item, then returned his car. The client then used the legitimate receipt to steal two further identical items from the store. The following week, he returned with the intent of obtaining a cash refund for the items. This was when our client got intercepted and arrested.

He was charged with:

  • Shoptheft
  • Obtain financial advantage
  • Obtain property by deception

The value of theft was just under $400 and our client has never had any trouble with the Police before these events.

Andrew George represented our client at the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court.

After we received instructions from our client, we contacted the Police informant and persuaded them to agree to diversion. The case was prepared for diversion but was initially refused by the Magistrate. Submissions were made in person to the Magistrate in open Court and he agreed for the case to proceed on diversion with client having no criminal record as a result.

This outcome was vital to the client as our client works in an area of corporate sensitivity.


Andrew GeorgeAndrew George

Andrew has over 25 years experience as a criminal lawyer and has been an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist since 1995. As Partner of Doogue + George, Andrew oversees all matters run out of the Sunshine office as a commitment to ensuring that your case has a proper and fair hearing to ensure the best outcome possible. Andrew has spent most of his career representing Melbourne’s western suburbs and has a commitment to the working people of Victoria. His experience includes providing criminal defence for a client during IBAC's first major prosecution, Operation Fitzroy.

Visit Andrew’s profile to read more about his background and experience.

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 25/02/2013