Forms Of Larceny And Powers Of Police Officers Under LEPRA
Scope of Larceny and its Character
Discuss about the Crime Numbers Game and Management.
The main purpose of the paper is to discuss about various forms and character of larceny and powers of the police officers regarding search, questioning and arrest any suspect under LEPRA. In this paper, a brief discussion on the larceny and its scope has been made. The case study of it is not yours until you pay has been analyzed categorically in the light of larceny and LEPRA.
The subject matter of the case is based on the principle of larceny. The term larceny denotes any crime that deals with taking the personal property of others illegally. Considering the various character of the larceny, it can be divided into burglary, robbery, fraud and theft. Like the other forms of crime, criminal intention and criminal acts are important in case of larceny. In this case, the actual possession of the property by others is necessary and it must be proved that the person taking the property has obtained the same by fraud or has no control over the same. In Australia, the punishment for larceny is five years imprisonment and the Crimes Act 1900 has dealt it. according to this Act, it is to be proved that the person is taking away the goods or things without making payment for that and without the consent of the owner of the goods. Further, there should be certain intention to take the property permanently from the owner.
In this given case, it has been held that certain people come into a shop and take certain things for their personal interest and did not make any payment for the same. Considering the veracity of their acts, it can be stated that they have attracted the provision of larceny. The acts of the woman who gave grape fruits to the toddler or the woman in the shop who took almonds for her personal use and paid nothing for the same have attracted the provision larceny. Further, when the people are taking the magazines from the shops are not amount to larceny, as the magazines are not taken from the shop. Therefore, the original possession of the magazines is not occurred. All of them had taken the same without the consent of the owner and their taking can be stated as unlawful taking.
The current subject matter of the case is based on the provision of LEPRA and the authority of the police officer under the Act[1]. The term LEPRA has been discussed under Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibilities) Act, 2002 and Code of Practice of Crime (NSW). The term has provided certain sections for generating the personal search power of the police officers. According to Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibilities) Act, 2002, personal search by the police has been divided under section 3 and LEPRA has been concluded under Part 4. According to section 21 of the Act, the police can stop, search, detain, and detain any person when the police officers can find any suspicious movement. Any police can apply this provision in case of any stolen things or things obtained illegally. This principle has been established in Williams v The Queen[2]. According to section 21A of Police Powers Legislation Amendment Act 2006, the police officer can search anything hide in the mouth or hair of the suspect. Further, according to section 23 of the Act, if there is a possibility that danger can be produced from the suspect or the person can escape from the custody, police may arrest the person. On the other hand, the Code of Practice has also certain provisions on the LEPRA mentioned under Part 15. The safeguards regarding the same have been discussed under section 201 of the Code and it empowers the police to stop, search and arrest a person. If any person does not help the officer for promoting search, the police can arrest the person (Fleet v District Court of NSW[3]). Under section 203 of the Code, the police officer can give warning also. Circumstances for exercising the powers have been discussed under section 204A of the Code. Certain statutory power regarding arrest has been mentioned under part 8 of LEPRA.
The Case Study of Larceny and LEPRA
The present case is based on the facts identification of the police officer in case it is not yours until you pay. According to Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibilities) Act 2002, a police officer shall exercise his power regarding the search, questioning and arrest a person for caution a suspect. Considering the case study, it has been observed that the characters of the case have done certain acts of larceny[4]. However, under LEPRA, certain powers have been conferred to the police officer that they can exercise in these cases. The process of search and questioning can be done when there is a possibility of suspicion grew up by the officer regarding the acts of the person. The process of search has been made under section 204A of the LEPRA. Further, the police can take help of Police Reform Act 2002 for committing all the search and arrest process. Public Order Act 1986 is helpful in this case too. Certain processes have also been mentioned under section 353A of the Crimes Act.
This question is based on the provision of Rule of Law and LEPRA and criticism regarding the provisions. It has been observed from LEPRA that it authorizes the police officers to make search or questioning or arrest a person if there is a chance for the person be guilty under the offence of larceny or there is any possibilities of committing any other offence. However, there are certain criticisms regarding the powers given to police officers under LEPRA. According to Attorney General Andrew Tink and former Police Minister Paul Whelan, a police officer can arrest a person without any warrant as provided under section 99 of LEPRA[5]. In addition, LEPRA amendment Act enlarges the provision of powers of the police regarding arrest process. The police officer can use arrest at any stage and not as the last resort. However, the process of arrest has been criticized in Williams v The Queen where the justice Wilson and Dawson stated that arrest is a deprivation of liberty and should not be exercised arbitrarily.
Further, criticism has been made regarding Dicey’s Rule of Law. According to this, law is the supreme power and human rights are resulted from court decision. Arbitrary power has been conferred by Dicey on the court. However, the application of these rules in modern perspectives is quite disputed and various criticisms have been made against the rules. Dicey had failed to analyze the inherent ambiguity of the parliamentary decision. Further, no differences have been made by Dicey on arbitrary power and discretionary power, which causes complexities. Considering the case study, I will not apply the process of arrest at all the stages and I would take necessary legal aid.
Considering the various provisions of case, it has been observed that apart from LEPRA, there are certain alternatives to deal with the offence of larceny. According to section 117 of Crimes Act 1900, the punishment for larceny has been mentioned as five years. However, there is no mention regarding the process of implementation when the offence for larceny has been committed. A detailed process has given under section 201 to section 204A of the Act. Further, the power and liabilities of the police officers regarding these offences has been made in this Act. Certain safeguards and limitations of the police officers in case of search have been mentioned in this case. Further, all the resorts regarding the arrest process have been mentioned under the Act that do not mentioned under any other alternatives. Therefore, provision of LEPRA is quite liberal and acceptable for the offences relating to larceny[6].
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be stated that any act that has been done with an intention to change the possession of the thing without the knowledge and consent of the original owner, could be regarded as larceny. Considering this, it can be stated that giving grapes to the toddler or taking almonds from the shop without the knowledge of the shop owner amount to larceny. Further, the amended provision of LEPRA has also been discussed and the probable negative impacts of the Act has been categorized.
Reference:
(2018) Legalaid.nsw.gov.au https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/6097/LEPRA-Police-Powers-to-Search-and-Arrest-.pdf
(2018). [online] Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000486588902200203 [Accessed 17 May 2018]. Finnane, M “police force to police service” (1989).
Chemerinsky, Erwin. Constitutional law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2016.
CRC Press. (2018). The Crime Numbers Game: Management by Manipulation. [online] Available at: https://www.crcpress.com/The-Crime-Numbers-Game-Management-by-Manipulation/Eterno-Silverman/p/book/9781439810316 [Accessed 17 May 2018].
Definition Of LARCENY (2018) Merriam-webster.com https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/larceny
McNamara, Luke, et al. “Theorising Criminalisation: The Value of a Modalities Approach.” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 7.1 (2018).
Steffensmeier, Darrell, Casey T. Harris, and Noah Painter-Davis. “Gender and arrests for larceny, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement: Conventional or occupational property crime offenders?.” Journal of Criminal Justice 43.3 (2015): 205-217.