Theft from Employer – Diversion
Our client was employed by a restaurant in Melbourne CBD. She was charged with stealing money from the till during her shift, and concealing it in her work uniform until having an opportunity to hide it properly in the staff change rooms. The conduct was captured on CCTV. The restaurant was not able to establish the value of the money taken over approximately five occasions.
Ordinarily, offending which involves a theft from employer is considered to be more serious than other examples of theft, due to there being a breach of trust.
Kristina Kothrakis represented our client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
Diversion was not recommended by the Informant at first instance. However Kristina Kothrakis was able to persuade a police prosecutor at Court during a summary case conference to get the Informant to recommend Diversion.
At the Diversion hearing, Kristina Kothrakis set out our client’s background which included being sent away from her family at a young age, and sent to live with extended family in a different country due to political unrest, as well as our client’s resilience which she has shown in overcoming an adverse history by moving to Australia, educating herself and doing her best to forge a stable and happy life for her and her partner. Kristina also set out the financial pressures she was under at the time of the offending and assisted her in obtaining character references to attach to the Diversion notice.
Ultimately the Magistrate was satisfied that Diversion was appropriate in this case, despite the offending occurring in an employment situation.
Kristina strives to achieve the best possible result for all her clients. Skilled, decisive and assertive, Kristina demonstrates dedication, care and professionalism at all times.
Visit Kristina’s profile to read more about her 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