The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Agnes for theft given that she left a shop in possession of a handbag for which she had not paid.
To determine if there is sufficient evidence it is necessary to consider the likely defence case and bear in mind how likely the defence case is to affect the prospect of conviction.
The defence is likely to argue that there is no evidence to suggest that Agnes was the person that placed the handbag in her bag prior to leaving the store. The store detective, Brian, only saw Agnes examining the handbag before leaving the store. Additionally, whilst Brian said that Agnes was ‘walking with purpose’ when leaving the store, he also said that Agnes ‘was well aware of what she was doing’. …show more content…
Agnes denies theft and has explained that she was distracted at which point her daughter put the handbag in Agnes’ shopping bag. Given that Agnes repeatedly looks at her phone, as shown in CCTV and from Brian’s account of the events, an explanation of distraction may be plausible. The explanation of distraction may be further proven as, at the time, Agnes was on medication that may have affected her concentration. A court may find that Agnes’ explanation is credible; this further reduces the prospect of conviction as a …show more content…
It is unlikely that the victim and shop workers suffered considerable fear or damage as a result of the offence. The loss to the department store could be described as minor and was as a result of a single incident. Given these factors, the offence can be deemed to be on the low end of the scale for seriousness.
The explanation given by Agnes lends credibility to the fact that this was a genuine mistake. Whilst this does not mean that prosecution should not be considered, the possibility that the offence committed is a genuine mistake needs to be balanced alongside the seriousness of the offence to decide if prosecution is required. Coupled with the fact that Agnes would lose her job as a result of a conviction of an offence of dishonesty, it is unlikely the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would continue with prosecution.
The maximum guideline sentence for shoplifting is three years. However, with no prior convictions and given the value of the handbag, the court is likely to only impose a nominal penalty. Given the cost to the CPS and wider justice system, of pursuing a prosecution and the fact that there was very little negative impact on the community as a result of the offence committed by Agnes, it would be a disproportionate response for the CPS to pursue
To determine if there is sufficient evidence it is necessary to consider the likely defence case and bear in mind how likely the defence case is to affect the prospect of conviction.
The defence is likely to argue that there is no evidence to suggest that Agnes was the person that placed the handbag in her bag prior to leaving the store. The store detective, Brian, only saw Agnes examining the handbag before leaving the store. Additionally, whilst Brian said that Agnes was ‘walking with purpose’ when leaving the store, he also said that Agnes ‘was well aware of what she was doing’. …show more content…
Agnes denies theft and has explained that she was distracted at which point her daughter put the handbag in Agnes’ shopping bag. Given that Agnes repeatedly looks at her phone, as shown in CCTV and from Brian’s account of the events, an explanation of distraction may be plausible. The explanation of distraction may be further proven as, at the time, Agnes was on medication that may have affected her concentration. A court may find that Agnes’ explanation is credible; this further reduces the prospect of conviction as a …show more content…
It is unlikely that the victim and shop workers suffered considerable fear or damage as a result of the offence. The loss to the department store could be described as minor and was as a result of a single incident. Given these factors, the offence can be deemed to be on the low end of the scale for seriousness.
The explanation given by Agnes lends credibility to the fact that this was a genuine mistake. Whilst this does not mean that prosecution should not be considered, the possibility that the offence committed is a genuine mistake needs to be balanced alongside the seriousness of the offence to decide if prosecution is required. Coupled with the fact that Agnes would lose her job as a result of a conviction of an offence of dishonesty, it is unlikely the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would continue with prosecution.
The maximum guideline sentence for shoplifting is three years. However, with no prior convictions and given the value of the handbag, the court is likely to only impose a nominal penalty. Given the cost to the CPS and wider justice system, of pursuing a prosecution and the fact that there was very little negative impact on the community as a result of the offence committed by Agnes, it would be a disproportionate response for the CPS to pursue