Shoplifting claim against Osborne

[born an eel]

If his excuse is reasonable and Police accept it was an honest mistake, the mens rea is not proven.

Andrew Johns did not mean anything by his poor choice of words, it was a mistake, but Ozzie never excepted his excuse enough to let him stay on as a member of the coaching staff.

 

[Avenger]

Andrew Johns did not mean anything by his poor choice of words, it was a mistake, but Ozzie never excepted his excuse enough to let him stay on as a member of the coaching staff.

Johns was not investigated for any criminal offences. That was a civil matter matter at it's highest.

 

[born an eel]

Johns was not investigated for any criminal offences. That was a civil matter matter at it's highest.

exactly my point, it was no where near as serious as Ozzie's but he never got the same respect from ozzie that he himself received.

 

[Craig Johnston]

and he's an ex-cop right ?

I'm not sure you or I could get away with that sort of argument

:lol: so now it's a conspiracy

pretty cool having someone with such "power" in our ranks imo :roll:

 

[Twizzle]

A very good one too. Come on Twiz you just want him to suffer.

not really, I dont know the guy

I have nothing against him, I just dont understand how he can get off saying I forgot to pay

 

[strider]

FMD - clearly no one ever makes simple honest mistakes around here :roll:

 

[strider]

exactly my point, it was no where near as serious as Ozzie's but he never got the same respect from ozzie that he himself received.

dude - that is sooooooooooo apples vs oranges its not funny

 

[EelsFan05]

oh I see

so he didn't think he had to pay for the goods according to his mind

what a load of sh*t

Twiz. Avengers post is correct. If the prosecution cannot prove, via direct evidence or other circumstantial evidence, that the defendant had the mens rea to commit the offence i.e. the mental application to permanently deprive the owner of the property (one of the elements of the offence) then the person cannot be found guilty of the offence of stealing/shoplifting.

It’s a different story if the defendant walks around the shop prior to leaving the shop and rips tags off etc. to avoid detection by the scanners whilst leaving the store. However, if his argument is (I don’t know the circumstances other then reported) that he simply forgot to pay for it, then the prosecution has to prove otherwise. No mens rea equals not guilty in the eyes of the court.

 

[born an eel]

dude - that is sooooooooooo apples vs oranges its not funny

i'm not so much talking of the actions, more about the way people were treated for making a mistake. I do not see how it is apple and oranges.

 

[born an eel]

Twiz. Avengers post is correct. If the prosecution cannot prove, via direct evidence or other circumstantial evidence, that the defendant had the mens rea to commit the offence i.e. the mental application to permanently deprive the owner of the property (one of the elements of the offence) then the person cannot be found guilty of the offence of stealing/shoplifting.

It’s a different story if the defendant walks around the shop prior to leaving the shop and rips tags off etc. to avoid detection by the scanners whilst leaving the store. However, if his argument is (I don’t know the circumstances other then reported) that he simply forgot to pay for it, then the prosecution has to prove otherwise. No mens rea equals not guilty in the eyes of the court.

so if I was to "borrow" your car without asking, as long as I left a note saying I would return it later, I would be fine....:crazy:

By the way what is your rego number and can you leave a full tank of petrol please :sarcasm:

 

[sarahk]

Andrew Johns did not mean anything by his poor choice of words, it was a mistake, but Ozzie never excepted his excuse enough to let him stay on as a member of the coaching staff.

That is a completely different scenario.

Andrew Johns made a 'racist' remark. If i was to call someone a 'bloody ranga' and then say i didnt mean it, it would be stupid because the fact that i had to use those words to describe someone shows that i in fact did mean what i said. I don't think there was any malice behind the words, but he still meant them. Had he used those words on say, Billy Slater, then he would not have meant it.

As for Ozzie. He walked off without paying for something because it slipped his mind. I highly doubt a CEO would need to steal something so small when their whole career might be at stake because of it, especially when he is a regular customer there and was wearing a Parra jersey. That whole incident was blown out of proportion.

One shows a weakness in character, the other just shows human error.

 

[born an eel]

ok, fair enough but in each occasion I'm sure they will not do it again, and in Joeys case it is not because of the penalty imposed.

 

[strider]

i'm not so much talking of the actions, more about the way people were treated for making a mistake. I do not see how it is apple and oranges.

how do any of us even know what went down with all that? .... maybe Joey didn't want to stay on? maybe Tahu would have walked? maybe it was a mutual agreement? ..... not an easy decision to make and I understand fully that a CEO would side with his player over a part time consultant if he was forced to make a choice

 

[Haynzy]

It's interesting..i certainly don't think he meant to not pay, it was a mistake but; if i was caught speeding and said,
'oh gee i had a lot on my mind and didn't notice my speed'
Would i have grounds to get the fine overturned?

Did he go back and pay straight away or after he was caught?

 

[sarahk]

It's interesting..i certainly don't think he meant to not pay, it was a mistake but; if i was caught speeding and said,
'oh gee i had a lot on my mind and didn't notice my speed'
Would i have grounds to get the fine overturned?

Did he go back and pay straight away or after he was caught?

Speeding is a strict liability offence meaning it does not require the person to intend to speed. This is completely irrelevant and the only thing relevant to the offence is that the person was speeding.

Shoplifting on the other hand requires 'intent'.

 

[strider]

It's interesting..i certainly don't think he meant to not pay, it was a mistake but; if i was caught speeding and said,
'oh gee i had a lot on my mind and didn't notice my speed'
Would i have grounds to get the fine overturned?

Did he go back and pay straight away or after he was caught?

i believe it wasn't until after he was caught because it wasn't until then that he realised he hadn't paid

if they caught him doing it more than once then i'd be sus but a one off then i'm prepared to believe he made an honest mistake

maybe the numbnuts at woolies and coles should stop replacing checkout jobs with cost cutting self service bullsh*t

 

[Haynzy]

Thanks Sarah, i thought it might be something like that.

Strides, totally agree.

 

[sarahk]

maybe the numbnuts at woolies and coles should stop replacing checkout jobs with cost cutting self service bullsh*t

They're so awesome how can you hate them? They're much more convenient and the only complaint i can make is when someone takes a huge shopping trolley to a self service counter and spends half an hour bagging their items. Now THAT sucks.

 

[EelsFan05]

so if I was to "borrow" your car without asking, as long as I left a note saying I would return it later, I would be fine....:crazy:

By the way what is your rego number and can you leave a full tank of petrol please :sarcasm:

You will notice most people that steal cars are charged with "Take Conveyance without Consent of Owner" rather then "Steal Motor Vehicle". This is because the prosecution cannot satisfactorily prove that the person stealing that car intended to permanently deprive the owner of the car. Especially in circumstances where the car is dumped of the side of the road. Although stealing seems like an easy subject there are many elements of the offence that the prosecution are required to prove.

 

[Twizzle]

Twiz. Avengers post is correct. If the prosecution cannot prove, via direct evidence or other circumstantial evidence, that the defendant had the mens rea to commit the offence i.e. the mental application to permanently deprive the owner of the property (one of the elements of the offence) then the person cannot be found guilty of the offence of stealing/shoplifting.

It’s a different story if the defendant walks around the shop prior to leaving the shop and rips tags off etc. to avoid detection by the scanners whilst leaving the store. However, if his argument is (I don’t know the circumstances other then reported) that he simply forgot to pay for it, then the prosecution has to prove otherwise. No mens rea equals not guilty in the eyes of the court.

thats not my argument

I haven't suggested he purposely did it and I have no reason to

I just dont understand how that argument can be used successfully

wouldn't everyone use that argument if they thought they could get away with it and no one would ever been found guilty of shoplifting