盗窃 指控
新南威尔士州的盗窃罪
在新南威尔士州，盗窃罪是针对与 “偷窃 “或 “偷盗 “有关的犯罪行为的一种刑事犯罪。
1900 年《刑法》（新南威尔士州）（以下简称 “该法”）第 117 条规定了盗窃罪。
虽然对 “盗窃 “的构成没有固定的定义，但为了证明发生了盗窃行为，警方必须证明以下要素，即该财产
- 能够被盗；
- 属于被告以外的其他人；
- 未经财产所有人同意被拿走和带走；
- 拿走财物的目的是永久性剥夺财产所有人的财产；以及
- 不诚实地拿走。
如果警方无法在排除合理怀疑的情况下确定该罪行的所有要素，则必须宣告被告无罪。反之，如果在排除合理怀疑的情况下确定了所有要素，则被告将被认定犯有此罪。
为了确定这一要素，必须证明财产能够被盗。
在该法中，”财产 “的定义包括以下描述：
- 不动产和个人财产；
- 金钱、有价证券、债务和遗产；以及
- 与任何财产有关或证明其所有权或权利的所有契约和文书，或赋予追回或接收任何金钱或货物的权利的所有契约和文书。
该定义至关重要，因为其中有一项 “运输 “要求，即财产必须能够实际运输。例如，”土地 “不可能被盗，但正如该法所规定的，证明土地 “所有权或权利 “的文件可以被盗。
此外，必须证明相关财产具有一定的价值，即使价值微不足道。
在盗窃罪中，”属于 “他人的财产这一概念的适用范围很广，而不是很严格。因此，只需证明该财产在被拿走时是由被告以外的人拥有、控制或占有，即可确立这一要件。
为了满足这一条件，必须证明被告或代表被告行事的人以某种形式实际移动了有关财产。只要有证据证明财产有最轻微的移动，就足以满足这一要件的门槛。
此外，还必须证明财产是在未经财产所有人同意的情况下被拿走的。
对于盗窃罪而言，必须证明被告知道拿走财产会永久剥夺财产所有人的财产。
如果被告拿走财产，只是打算暂时剥夺性财产所有人的财产，且打算归还财产，则不符合这一要件。但是，根据该法第 118 条，如果被告暂时占有财产是为了给自己或其他第三方谋取利益，则不能以此为由进行抗辩。
被告只要在任何时候意识到他们的行为会导致财产所有人被永久性剥夺财产即可。因此，不必证明被告在占有财产时有这种想法。
警方必须证明被告行为的不诚实，证明被实施该行为并非犯错，并且知道该财产属于他人。
采用一项测试来确定被告的行为是否不诚实。检验标准是被告的行为是否 “有违普通正派人士的现行标准”。
Defences
The primary defence to larceny is a claim of right.
If the property is taken because the accused genuinely believes that they are the real owner of the property, then they may have a claim of right defence.
There are a number of factors to take into account for this defence, which includes:
- The claim must be genuine and honest;
- The belief does not have to be reasonable;
- There must be a legal entitlement to the property, not a mere moral entitlement;
- The claim only extends to the amount of property or money you are legally entitled to. For example, if you take $5,000 from a person who may owe you $1,000, then the claim of right only extends to the $1,000.
- The claim of right is not confined to the specific property but can also extend to cases where what is taken is their equivalent value
Other defences may be available; however, it is only applicable in certain circumstances. A lawyer should be contacted to see whether these defences are available in your circumstances.
Penalties
Larceny is an indictable offence and carries a maximum penalty of five (5) years imprisonment according to the Act.
If the value of the property exceeds $5,000, the charge must be dealt with in the Local Court unless the PProsecutor or accused elects to have the matter heard at the District Court. In this scenario, both the PProsecutor and accused have the power to elect.
If the value of the property is below $5,000, then the charge must be dealt with in the Local Court, unless the PProsecutor elects to have the matter heard at the District Court. In this scenario, only the PProsecutor has the power to elect.
The court in which the charge is dealt with is important as it affects the penalty that may imposed if found guilty of this offence. A jurisdictional limit is imposed on Magistrates in the Local Court, therefore the penalties that may apply at this level include:
- If the value of the property exceeds $5,000 – a maximum penalty of two (2) years imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units.
- If the value of the property is below $5,000 – a maximum penalty of two (2) years imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units.
- If the value of the property is below $2,000 – a maximum penalty of two (2) years imprisonment and/or 20 penalty units.
If the Prosecutor or accused elects to have the charge heard at the District Court, then the accused may be liable to imprisonment for five (5) years.
Whether the Prosecutor or accused elects to have the matter proceed before a District Court will depend on a number of factors. This is why it is important for you to seek legal advice so that you fully understand all of the options that are available to you.
