Criminal

Family

Wills, Probate & Trusts

Employment

Conveyancing & Property

Immigration

Personal Injury

Consumer

Company & Commercial

Libel & Defamation

Breach of the Peace Explained

What is Bail and How Does it Work?

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOS)

Possession of an Offensive Weapon

Driving Without a MOT

How to Check Crime Figures in Your Neighbourhood

Police Powers to Stop and Search

Cottaging and Cruising Laws in the UK

What is Plea Bargaining?

Laws on Identity Theft and Identity Fraud

The Process of Court Appeals

Indecent Exposure Laws and Offences

Which court will deal with my criminal case? Criminal Law FAQs - LocalSolicitors.com

Which court will deal with my criminal case?

I assume that your son was interviewed under caution by the police and that at that at the conclusion of the interview, the decision was made to dispose of the case by way of a formal youth caution, triggering the notification requirement (informally called the sex offenders register). If that is the case, for your son to have been made subejct of the youth caution (trigering the notification requirement) there had to be adimissions to an offence in the police interview. If he didn't in fact admit the offence, then the caution would have been wholly inapropriate and yes, there may be the possibility of having the caution removed from his record and the notification requirement with it. If however, he did indeed make admissions (ie covered for his brother) then it would not really be feasible to have the caution and notification requirement removed.

Getting Removed from the Sex offenders register

For the prosecution to prove a case of theft, it is necessary that they prove that the person concerned a) Dishonestly b) appropriated, property that c) belonged to another and d) that they did so with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of that property. In this case you feel that the fact that you hadn't left the shop means that they can't prove b), that there was an appropriation. Goods are 'appropriated' as soon as the person assumes the rights of an owner. The case law regarding shoplifting offences says that that occurs when the goods are removed from the shelves. However, the Crown then need to prove that the person was acting dishonestly. This is where your defence lies. The fact that the goods were not removed from the shop will of course make it harder for the Crown to prove that you were acting dishonestly. This is the type of case where the prosecution are likely to rely on bad character evidence if there have been any similar previous convictions. If, as you say, your actions were not dishonest and that there was an intention to pay for the goods, it is for the Crown to prove otherwise 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In this case, as you have described events, they will struggle to prove their case against your friend. My assumption is that they are treating this as a joint enterprise and this makes the Crown's job even harder in relation to you. Definitely obtain legal advice and obtain representation before you attend court.

Charged with 2 thefts from 2 shops, when I was detained in the second shop and did not attempt to leave without paying?

Which court will deal with my criminal case?

undefined Solicitor Answers

Related Questions