Case Study - Theft and Assault

Good Morning Sir/Madam, I am appearing before you to represent my clients, Sadie Jones and
Maisie Smith, who have been charged with theft and also of assault and battery. They are
charged of stealing three necklaces and a bracelet from the display of the store priced at £250. At
the same time, Ms. Smith has also been charged of hitting the detective working in the store.
In this case, I want to put to the Court that there are certain mitigating factors that are worthy of
consideration before sentencing.
May I proceed Madam/Sir?
Important elements of the case:
I admit before you that my clients Sadie Jones and Maisie Smith have stolen three necklaces and
a bracelet from the display of the store. When they came out of the store, they were followed by
a detective from the store and apprehended them in the street. It is alleged that Ms. Smith had
kicked the detective which resulted in bruising. It needs to be mentioned that one of the
necklaces was damaged but the store wants to proceed with the case against my clients. The
prosecution seeks damages for attacking the store detective and it is also seeking cost for medical
treatment of the detective.
Break down the different parts
For each offence

The definition of theft has been provided in the Theft Act, 1968. It has been provided that a
person will be guilty of theft, if he had dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another.
Legislation
In section 2, circumstances have been provided when the appropriation of property belonging to
another person is not going to be considered as dishonest. The punishment for theft has been
provided in section 7, which provides that if a person has been found guilty of theft, he shall be
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.
The definition of robbery has been mentioned in section 8. It provides that the person will be
held guilty of robbery, if he steals and in order to do so, uses force on any person.
The definition of burglary has been provided by section 9. It is mentioned that a person is going
to be guilty of burglary, if he had entered any building as a trespasser and had intention of
committing the offense mentioned in subsection 2.
Subsection 2 provides that after entering the building as a trespasser and if the person steals or
tries to steal anything or if he inflicts or tries to inflict any grievous bodily harm to any person,
that person will be guilty of burglary.
Actus reus
Mens rea
However in the present case it needs to be noted that Sadie Jones and Maisie Smith had not
entered the premises as trespassers. At the same time, it also needs to be mentioned that they
have not used any force while committing the offense. Therefore, they need to be convicted for
the offense of theft, and not of robbery or burglary.
It has been provided by s47, Offenses against the Person Act, 1861 that the offense of assault
contains causing actual bodily harm. In this context, bodily harm refers to the harm that has been

caused to the victim and which interferes with the health or the comfort of the victim. Section 39,
Criminal Justice Act, 1988 provides that the offense of common assault takes place when any
person either assaults some other person or commits battery. The sentence for assault resulting in
actual bodily harm is imprisonment for five years but in many cases, the first-time offenders are
not likely to attract the full sentence. The benefit of this provision also needs to be given to Sadie
Jones.
Mitigating factors: it is requested that if my clients are found guilty, we want that the defendant
should have the most lenient sentence possible.
Default sentence: it is suggested by the Sentencing Guidelines of the Magistrates Courts that in
case of an offense of theft from a shop, then there is little or no planning or sophistication and at
the same time, another point that needs to be noted is that the goods stolen were of low value (the
necklaces and the bracelet had a total value of £250), then:
The starting point: Band B fine (75%-125% of the weekly income of the defendant, starting at
100%)
Ranging to: conditional discharge or a low-level community order
It also needs to be noted in this regard that there is no previous conviction present in case of the
defendants, Sadie Jones and Maisie Smith.
It is also worth mentioning that the value of the goods stolen was not very high (it was only
£250).

The offense committed by my clients cannot be described as an offense in its 'professional sense'.
The defendants were not motivated by any desire to cause harm.
Hence, the meaning of the lack of aggravating factors can be described as the possibility that my
clients are going to have a better chance of getting a more lenient sentence.
Offense Mitigation:
The value of the jewelry stolen from the store was not very high.
It also needs to be noted that Maisie Smith is a young girl.
As she is very young, efforts should be made by the court to help and rehabilitate Maisie Smith
and not to punish her.
It is also worth mentioning that when she was arrested, he was not under the influence of drugs
or alcohol.
Maisie Smith had cooperated with the police at the time of arrest and she was not abusive or
violent even if she may have abused the store detective when he and to accompany him to the
office of the store manager.

Maisie Smith had a troubled childhood. She did not have the support and guidance of her mother
or father.
Suggested sentence:
An attempt should be made at sentence as far as possible. The factors mentioned above need to
be considered by the court in this regard.
Another very significant point is that the court is required to consider the guilty made by Sadie
Jones and Maisie Smith.
Plea in Mitigation
If found guilty there are chances that the defendants should have the most lenient sentence
possible. In this regard, it is suggested by the sentencing guidelines of the Magistrates Courts
that in case of an offense of that from a shop, where there was little or no planning or
sophistication and the value of the goods stolen from the job was not very high, then o starting
point: Band B fine (75%-125% D's weekly income starting at 100%) o ranging to: conditional
discharge or a low level community order Statutory.
Aggravating circumstance
It has also been provided that the offense should be treated by the Court as more serious if
previous convictions present. However in the present case, there is no previous conviction
present in case of Sadie Jones and Maisie Smith. Another point that needs to be the court that in

this case, the defendants were not motivated to commit the crime by revenge or seeking to cause
harm. The present offense cannot be described as an offense in its 'professional sense'. In this
case the victim store was not particularly vulnerable. There were a number of staff members
present in the store, which included the store detective.
Mitigating circumstances
Under the circumstances, it can be stated that in the present case, there is a lack of aggravating
factors. This means that Sadie Jones and Maisie Smith have better chances of receiving a lenient
sentence.
Plea for a more leaning sentence
In case of Maisie Smith, it can be said that she is a young girl who has been led astray.
Therefore, efforts should be made by the Court to applicator and not to punish her.
Closing
I want to assure the court that my clients will not be brought to this court again as offenders. I
will be happy to answer any questions that the court may have and so are my clients.

ferry
Sentencing Council (2019) ‘Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines online’.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/