Crimes Act of New South Wales - Case Study Example

Name Tutor Title: NSW Crimes Act Institution Date Introduction Larceny is a term used to describe crimes that entail a person taking another person’s property without their consent. Some countries have abolished this law while others still have it as a crime though the precincts under which the actions are considered are never clear as the line dividing theft and intent is very narrow. However, the police have a right to arrest and search a person especially if they are suspects. Similarly, a wide range of alternatives are availed to police handling the situations (NSW police force, 2010). General principles and proof of the NSW crime act in relation to the substantive criminal offence category. One of the general principles which serves as proof on the NSW crime act is that the item or object that is said to be stolen must have been moved from their original position. This implies that the criminal must have not only shown intent to take away another person’s property but also shifted the original location of the item thus justifying the intent (Quinney, 2007). In the case study, the items that are being shoplifted namely the fruits, bananas, grapes and hydroponics tomatoes all have moved from their original position as the individual either carries them away or eats them right away (Lawson, 2010). However, in the case of the individual who has plans to steal the magazines, there is no shift in position therefore he does not qualify to be arrested as there was no change in position of the property. Similarly, moving items from the shelves in the supermarket is not shoplifting as the customer could have intended to place it in his/her basket. However, the fact that the grapes never found their way in the shopping basket is proof that the individual had no intention of buying the items but rather consume them before making payments (Blythe, 1992). The other principle and proof is that the item that was stolen must have belonged to someone else. Hence there must be some form of ownership by another party such that inappropriate exchange of possession is termed as shoplifting or theft. However, the item that is stolen must have a certain value which is quantifiable. This means that worthless items that are illegally possessed by another person cannot be categorized as substantive criminal offence due to lack of monetary value (Garoupa & Klerman, 2002). Therefore, items whose original position has been shifted as well as exchanged hands without necessary formalities falls under the crimes act of the NSW crimes. The other proof that increases the criminal offence is that the property that was taken belonged to another person for example the hydroponics tomatoes were property of the supermarket while the wheelbarrow had its owner despite the fact that it had been made to lie in the garden. The shoppers who were eating fruits in the supermarket had not really paid for them therefore making it illegal to consume them prior to exchanging of the goods (Quinney, 2007). Consequently, the intent to steal or take away items without the owners consent is another principle of the NSW crime acts such temporary shifting of position may not be termed as crime. This is because the thief may decide to restore the item hence evading arrest for larceny. This intent is seen in the way in which the individuals portrayed their motives by failing to own the items without making any moves towards legalizing the entire payments. The intention is clear as the individual does not make any attempt to return the items even after the workers at the supermarket acknowledge the actions as being illegal. The consent of the supermarket owner would have been sought through payment before eating (NSW police force, 2010) The customer buying the tomatoes would have otherwise made it clear that he did not have intentions of paying less that required charges for the tomatoes whose value was higher. This is against the law as the owner of the tomatoes will not be in a position to acquire equal value for the price of his goods. This is relevant to the substantive criminal offence category as it presents the police officers with a clear guideline on the circumstances under which an individual may be arrested or implicated for wrong doing (Aquinas, 1988). Implications of laws most relevant to the police There are a number of laws that are very relevant to police especially before, during arrest or questioning. One of the laws states that the police have to make the suspect understand that they have a right to keep quite or do nothing as such actions may be used as evidence against the individual. This is especially relevant when it comes to informing and making the individual understand the caution that is put across. This implies that the police officer who is in charge of arresting the individual has an added advantage as they may be able to access evidence that other members of the legislative may fail to obtain. This is because in the cause of resisting arrest, an individual may end up in outbursts that may reveal a lot about the offence that has been committed (Kenneth, 1990). However, the same police officer may be at loggerheads with his bosses or the law if he/she fails to make known to the suspect of the caution. Therefore, failure to read out the rights of an individual who has been arrested may amount to certain violation of rights especially if the same words or actions are used in court as evidence against them. This implication may be used for the benefit of either the police officer or the individual depending on the degree of understanding that is presented by both parties at the time of arrest (Pennington, 1993). The police are also presented with the powers of stopping, detaining and searching people especially if they are suspected to have committed offences. Such powers are however extended only when the police officer issues a warrant that makes the search legal. The implications of these powers is that wrong use can interfere with evidence or may result in the individual resisting arrest thus making the entire activity quite visible. The same powers are applicable during house searches and detaining. However, all these laws are enacted in such a way that the individual who is being suspected has an advantage over the police officer as long as they do not utter or engage in actions that are applicable to the offence committed (Australian defence lawyer’s alliance, 2011). The right of silence does not affect the individual during questioning as at that time the individual will have been under arrest. Consequently, during questioning or after the arrest has been made. It is quite clear that free individuals have rights because the police officer may not have substantial evidence to warrant an arrest. However, in the occurrence of arrest, it shows that the police officer has already established sufficient evidence from the offence and therefore has to avail adequate explanations of individual rights so as to make the arresting quite fruitful. Similarly, to reduce negative implications against either party, it is vital that everyone will get to understand their predicament in the scenario (NSW police force, 2010). During questioning, the individual who is under arrest has the freedom to talk their way out as the police officer will be attempting to extract as much information as possible. However, caution is still applicable here as any word that is spoken whether justifying the action or backing out is recorded and later on used during the court session as evidence. The implications of the caution for the right of silence is relevant to a police officer as the exchange of words that is presented during the arrest and questioning is relevant in determining the outcome of the court case (Dworkin, 2005). The other responsibility that is presented to the police is that individuals who are about to be arrested must be made to understand the caution as well as their rights as indicated by the law. This is because the police have the power to carry out arrests, questioning as well as gather sufficient evidence that will be used to support the offence committed against the wishes of the suspect. Therefore, it is upon the police officer to ensure that such a scenario does not occur by educating the individual on the relevance of the right of silence (NSW police force, 2010). Consequently, the police must not use violence or force when making arrests as this would amount to assault. This is further on made even better for the individual being taken into custody as the police have to show evidence of an arrest warrant such that arrests are often made upon presentation of the consent. Such laws ensure that there are no implications of assault by the police which could hinder lawful expression of the crime act without any hindrances (Government of Northern Ireland, 1969). Alternatives for police in the case study The other alternative that is available to police in the case study is to ensure that they utilize integrity to the highest levels in warning the individual of the implications of the offence. Such skills and powers are essential especially when understanding the intent of the individual who was moving the wheelbarrow. The individual does not clearly show what they wanted to do with the wheelbarrow as during questioning they may defend themselves saying that they thought the inverted position was not appropriate. Integrity entails using relevant questions to bring out the intent clearly while at the same time reducing the convictions upon the individual (Australian defence lawyer’s alliance, 2011). This alternative is attained through police offering caution for the individual. Such reservations are emphasized through sufficient briefing on the part of the police to the individual way before making any legal move. For instance the young man who removed stalks from hydroponics tomatoes could have been unable to pay the higher charges for the variety yet it was his favourite type. Hence by use of integrity the police would be able to get the underlying picture that forced the party to engage in the shoplifting activity (Dressler, 2001). Consequently, the police have an alternative of ensuring that the rule of the law is upheld at all times. In this regard, the scenario of women perusing magazines as they wait for their turn at the till fails to make sense as they do not pay their dues to the supermarket owner for relieving their boredom. The rule of the law declares that unless someone pays for an item, it does not belong to them. Therefore, some loyalties have to be made to the owner of the supermarket for creating an easy time for the women when they stand on that queue (Cohen, 1985). Conclusion In conclusion there are several general principles that underlie the NSW crimes act especially as related to substantive criminal activities. Such include common crimes that individuals fail to regard as crimes for example eating foodstuffs before paying for them in a supermarket. The police however, are presented with powers that enable them to exercise the law upon the individuals after they have been informed of their rights most of which have direct implications in the attainment of justice under the NSW crimes act. In addition to these powers, police officers are also presented with a number of other alternatives which make it easier to exercise their authority in reducing the occurrence of petty crimes among community members (Lynch and Danner, 1998). Bibliography Aquinas, T., 1988, On Law, Morality and Politics, 2nd edition. Hackett Publishing Co, Indianapolis. Australian defense lawyer’s alliance, 2011, assaults/violent offences. Retrieved on May 17, 2011 from: http://www.australiancriminallawyers.com.au/web/page/NSW_Common_Assault Blythe, James M., 1992, Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Cohen, S., 1985, Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment, and Classification, Polity Press, New Jersey. Dressler J., 2001, Understanding Criminal Law, 3rd ed, Lexis, London. Dworkin, Ronald, 2005, Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, London. Garoupa, Nuno & Klerman, Daniel, 2002, "Optimal Law Enforcement with a Rent-Seeking Government", American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 4, No. 1. Pp116–140. Government of Northern Ireland, 1969, The Theft Act (Northern Ireland),retrieved on May 17, 2011 from: (Statutelaw.gov.uk Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, 1990, An Economic Analysis of the Criminal Law as Preference-Shaping Policy, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1.pp.234-237. Lawson, C., 2010, It’s not yours until you pay, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 January. Lynch J.P. and Danner M. J., 1998, Criminology, Volume 9, Number 3, 309-322, DOI: 10.1007/BF01064464. NSW police force, 2010, code of practice for CRIME (custody, rights, inspection, management and evidence), retrieved on May 17, 2011 from: http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about_us/policies__and__procedures/legislation_list/code_of_practice_for_crime Pennington, K., 1993, The Prince and the Law, 1200–1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition, University of California Press, Berkeley. Quinney, Richard, 2007, "Structural Characteristics, Population Areas, and Crime Rates in the United States," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 57(1), p. 45-52 Schneiders, K., 2008, law notes, 05-2001: cautioning, retrieved on May 17, 2011 from: N.Y. state Assembly website. Read More