The differences between theft, robbery, and burglary, and the associated penalties if convicted of an offence

Crimes against property, such as theft, robbery, and burglary, are serious offences that can have significant legal consequences. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct definitions and implications. This article explores the differences between theft, robbery, and burglary, including their sub-categories, the elements that must be proven in police prosecution, and how a lawyer can assist individuals charged with an offence.

Theft, also known as larceny or stealing, is a broad term that refers to the illegal act of taking another person's or business's property or services without their consent. It encompasses various sub-categories, including dishonesty, serious encroachment on proprietary rights, general deficiency such as embezzlement, unlawful possession of personal property, receipt of stolen property, identity theft, and theft of pets. To secure a conviction for theft, the prosecution must prove that the accused intentionally and knowingly took someone else's property without permission, with the specific intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of their property.

In accordance with the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 134 – Theft attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment for a basic offence and 15 years imprisonment for an aggravated offence. Stealing someone’s dog can attract a maximum penalty of $50,000 or 2-years imprisonment.

Robbery is a crime that involves theft along with the use or threat of force. Unlike theft, which can be committed without direct contact with the victim, robbery requires the offender to confront the victim and use force or intimidation to steal their property. Robbery can be further classified into armed robbery, where a weapon is used, and unarmed robbery, where force or intimidation is used without a weapon. To establish a robbery charge, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed theft, used force or threat of force, and had the intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property.

In accordance with the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 137 – Robbery attracts a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment for a basic offence and life imprisonment for an aggravated offence.

Burglary is the unlawful entry into a building or dwelling with the intent to commit a crime inside, typically theft. Unlike theft and robbery, burglary does not require direct confrontation with the victim. It can involve breaking and entering, or unauthorised entry through an open door or window. To secure a conviction for burglary, the prosecution must prove that the accused unlawfully entered a building or property with the intent to commit a crime inside.

In accordance with the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 17 – Trespassing attracts a maximum penalty of $5,000 or 6-months imprisonment for a primary production premises. Otherwise, a fine of $2,500 or 6-months imprisonment applies for any other property. Further penalties apply if the offending also involves assault or damage.

If charged with theft, robbery, or burglary, it is crucial to seek legal representation. A lawyer can assist individuals by examining the evidence, evaluating the strength of the prosecution's case, and formulating an effective defence strategy. They can challenge the evidence presented, question witnesses, and explore potential legal defences, such as lack of intent or mistaken identity. A lawyer can also negotiate with the prosecution for reduced charges or penalties, or seek alternative sentencing options, such as diversion programs or probation.

For information on Scammell & Co's legal services for Criminal, Police, and Traffic Matters follow the link HERE

*This information is current at the time of publication. For accurate legal advice, please contact Scammell & Co on 08 8440 270.

The use of colloquial Aussie language could constitute threatening behaviour

An Adelaide man recently lost a Supreme Court appeal against an Intervention Order placed upon him by the District Court of South Australia. The Intervention Order came about after the gentleman sent his former lawyer a series of threatening emails and letters peppered with Aussie colloquialisms that were taken as direct threats.

In one such instance, the gentleman emailed his lawyer saying he wanted to give a summons to her personally so she could “bend over and I can stick it up your arse”. In another instance, the gentleman referred to the perpetrator of the Port Arthur massacre, claiming that he “truly understood the Martin Bryant’s of this world”.

In his defence, the gentleman claimed that he was simply reverting to the use of “Australian English” and that the threats he issued against his former lawyer were misunderstood.

Offensive or threatening language is addressed under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (SA) 1935. Regardless if the language used is intentionally threatening or not, if it is unwanted and has the purpose or affect of violating one’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person it is directed at, then it is likely to amount to harassment. Moreover, a person who threatens to cause harm to another, or creates fear that a threat will be carried out, is committing a criminal offence. The maximum penalties for someone found guilty of such an offence is 5 years imprisonment for a basic offence, or 7 years imprisonment for an aggravated offence.

At the gentleman's hearing, Justice Sandi McDonald, dismissed his appeal against the Intervention Order, saying in her summary, “it was not unreasonable to suspect that, given [the defendant's] feelings towards the protected person, that he will, without intervention, commit an act of abuse against the protected person in the future.” Justice McDonald went on to say that “the material referred to in those allegations contained offensive material constituting an abuse”.

An experienced Scammell & Co lawyer can assist clients with Intervention Order applications, variations, and revocations. They will also diligently represent either protected person(s) or defendants in any court proceedings. For further information about Intervention Orders please click here

*This information is current at the time of publication. For accurate legal advice, please contact Scammell & Co on 08 8440 270.

Getting a fair trial in criminal law proceedings is a fundamental right under Australia's common law system

In Australia, the right to a fair and public criminal trial is a guaranteed right to all parties. Fair trial and fair hearing rights include:

Australia is committed to seven core international human rights treaties adopted by the UN under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 14(2) of the ICCPR, guarantees the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence.  Other guarantees in criminal proceedings are the right to counsel, the right to silence and the right against self-incrimination. These principles have been adopted in Australia’s common law system under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (13).

A fair trial and fair hearing will require recognition of the interests of the accused, the victim, and the community. In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence means in most cases, the prosecution bears the onus of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The presumption of innocence exists for several reasons, namely:

In Australia, when major indictable charges proceed to trial, a jury consisting of 12 lay people from the community will decide the facts and whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the charge(s), unless the accused elects to have a trial by judge alone. At the end of the trial the Judge will ‘charge’ the jury by directing them on the law and the facts of the case. This includes providing a summary of the case, the defence position, and any other important facts, so the jury can properly deliberate before reaching their verdict. Charging the jury is one of the most important stages of a trial. If the judge does not adequately charge the jury, any conviction may be overturned on an appeal.

It would be unrealistic to assume that justice prevails every time an accused enters a court room, for incidents of wrongful convictions and errors in the judicial process are not uncommon. For this reason, it is important that careful consideration of a convicted person’s legal proceedings from inception of the matter to the end of a trial, is thoroughly assessed by a criminal lawyer with substantial experience.

The criminal, police and traffic offence lawyers at Scammell & Co. are experienced in court proceedings and will, where at all possible, vigorously defend any charges or allegations laid against their clients or assess the prospect for appealing a conviction or legal outcome.

For further information on Scammell & Co's Criminal Law services please click here.

*This information is current at the time of publication. For accurate legal advice, please contact Scammell & Co on 08 8440 270.

Giving evidence in a court of law is a serious undertaking. Here are the key considerations.

If you have received a summons or subpoena to appear as a witness in a criminal or civil trial, then you are required to attend court. If you do not attend court at the listed date and time and without a reasonable excuse, then you may be charged with contempt of court or a warrant may be issued for your arrest. As the schedule for trials will often change, you should contact the party that has called you as a witness prior to the listed date and time, to confirm your attendance.

As a witness, it is likely that you have previously provided a written statement to the party that has called you as a witness in the case. Prior to giving your evidence in court, read over your written statement and refresh your memory in respect of the event that you will be questioned about. For example, when it occurred (the date and time), what you saw or heard and who was present. If any part of your statement is incorrect, then you should inform the prosecution or defence right away.

When you arrive on the day, you will need to wait outside of the courtroom until the court is ready to hear your evidence. As you cannot wait inside of the courtroom, you may bring a book, magazine or mobile phone to occupy yourself while you wait. If the court cannot hear your evidence on that day, then you may be required to return to court on another day.

When it is your turn to give evidence, you will swear an oath or make an affirmation to tell the truth.  First, you will be asked questions by the party that has called you. This is called examination in chief. Then, you may be asked questions by the other party in the case. This is called cross examination. You may then be re-questioned by the party that has called you before being released as a witness.

After your evidence is given, you can leave the court or remain in the public gallery of the courtroom to observe the remainder of the evidence being given.

You must tell the truth when giving evidence. So listen carefully to the questions, ask that the question be repeated if you did not hear it, do not feel pressured to answer quickly and do not guess the answer if you do not know. It will also assist the court if you answer the questions in a clear and loud voice.

A person who knowingly makes a false statement under oath or affirmation may be charged with an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

For information about Scammell & Co.'s Civil Litigation services and the dispute resolution process click here

*This information is current at the time of publication. For accurate legal advice, please contact Scammell & Co on 08 8440 270.

If you can no longer afford to feed and medicate your pet, you are at risk of committing an animal cruelty offence.

If statistics are anything to go by South Australians are animal lovers. A survey conducted by Animal Medicines Australia revealed 68 per cent of SA households own a pet. Pet ownership is a privilege which comes with clear responsibilities and obligations. So, when animal abuse is reported in the media, understandably the public are horrified.

Whilst there are laws in place to protect animals, the punishments handed down by the courts for offences relating to the ill treatment of animals have been seen to be inadequate. Consequently, in 2008 penalties doubled under the Animal Welfare Act 1985 (the Act). The maximum time for imprisonment in SA jumped from one to two years, and the maximum fine increased from $10,000 to $20,000. Additionally, a maximum four-year prison sentence or a $50,000 fine was introduced for more serious aggravated offences.

Under the Act a person has committed an offence if they have intentionally or recklessly caused the death of, or unnecessary harm to, an animal. The ill treatment of an animal also includes offences such as failing to provide appropriate and adequate food, water, living conditions or exercise.

According to the RSPCA, many abuse cases are not deliberate. Often animal owners experience financial hardship and can no longer afford food, veterinary fees and medication for their pets. However, despite harsher penalties a staggering 3941 cruelty reports were investigated in SA in the last financial year. Of these, 27 cases involving 29 defendants were considered so serious the RSPCA used their legal power to prosecute under the Act.

Scammell and Co. provides legal assistance to defendants charged with animal cruelty offences. In the event there are mitigating circumstances surrounding the offence, we will endeavour to persuade the court to apply the greatest degree of leniency possible. We may also persuade the court not to record a conviction. Although the maximum penalties may seem harsh, it is at the court’s discretion to impose a more lenient sentence such as a smaller fine or a good behaviour bond in lieu of imprisonment.

*This information is current at the time of publication. For accurate legal advice, please contact Scammell & Co on 08 8440 270.