Welfare Law: Property Theft and Homelessness

This case study discusses the legal implications of property theft and homelessness under welfare law in Australia. It explores a specific case of a repeat offender who is homeless and a heroin user, and examines the relevant legislation and its application. The judgment considers the seriousness of the offense, the offender's consistent criminal behavior, and the welfare aspects of the case, including accommodation and drug abuse treatment.

Running head: WELFARE LAW
WELFARE LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1WELFARE LAW
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Facts.................................................................................................................................................2
Issue.................................................................................................................................................3
Law..................................................................................................................................................3
Application......................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5
Reference.........................................................................................................................................6

2WELFARE LAW
Introduction
In Australia a magistrates’ court is the lowest court where all criminal proceedings and
some family proceedings are heard. The role of a Magistrates court, limited to a smaller
jurisdiction, is to handle smaller civil matters and the matters relating to summary offence.
Unlike other courts the Magistrates’ Court does not have any jury. The court is presided over by
a Magistrate who has jurisdictions with cases related to general, minor and consumer and
business civil claims and criminal cases. The power to make decisions related to all the civil
matters is in the hands of the Magistrate. Other areas related to child offenders, sudden deaths,
domestic violence matters, matters relating to family law, civil cases involving money disputes
are also under the jurisdictions of the Magistrates’ courts. In the cases of serious offences the
court commits it to the District Court or Supreme Court for sentence or Trial. The observed case
was about property theft relating to shop theft and heard in the Magistrates’ Court. In the case it
was given that the offender had committed crimes relating to shop theft and burglary and was
further discovered that he was homeless and a heroin user.
Facts
In the case the offender had been prosecuted for property theft. The day before the
proceeding one officer saw the offender go to a local shopping centre and pick up 3 pairs of jeans
and put them on his backpack. Another officer saw the perpetrator picking up a black raincoat
and shoving it down his pants. It was further noticed by the two officers that the perpetrator went
out of the market walking past the cashier without paying for the amenities. The total theft was
estimated for about $64. The perpetrator was later arrested and four alms were returned. The

3WELFARE LAW
perpetrator was found to be a repeat offender. He was linked with a burglary happened last year
with the help of the forensic evidence found present in the scene of the crime. The burglary
happened on 30th September last year and the offender had broken the bed room window of a
house and climbed up the stairs to steal alms. The police perpetuator pointed out the consistent
nature of his crimes and described them as indelible offence. The judge asked for a breach of
corrections report for his repeated offences. It was further discovered that the offender was a
homeless person who lost his benefits and is a heroin user. The offender pleaded guilty for his
offences and was ready to attend correctional remedies.
Issue
The primary issue of the case is whether the repetitive nature of crime of the offender
hold serious punishment for him. Another issue that arisen in the case is the homlessness and
drug abusing nature of the offender.
Law
The case in discussion, held in the Magistrate’s court, is of property theft in relation to a
shop theft. The case had been read in front of the Judge by a police perpetuator. It was found that
the offender is a homeless and heroine user who lost all his benefits in some unfortunate
circumstances. Therefore the case is relevant under two separate legislations, one regarding theft
of property under Criminal Code 2002 and other relating to welfare of homeless under the
Human Rights Act 2011 (Cth). With relation to the right to living of a person stated in the
Human Rights Act a bill was passed named the Homelessness Bill 2013. The object of the bill is
to recognize the people who are or are at the risk of homelessness and to provide them with

4WELFARE LAW
similar rights, choices and opportunities received by other Australians regardless of their age,
sex, religious or political views (Legislation, 2013). There are two government funded homeless
welfare organisations namely the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) and
National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH). This two organisations further fund
around 1500 Specialist homelessness Services (Flatau et al, 2015). There had been a significant
decrease in property theft crime rates after the implementations of various homeless welfare
rules (Clancey & Lulham, 2014).
Application
Property theft is considered to be a serious issue in Australia. In a research conducted by
the Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra there are almost 1.3 million incidents of shop
thefts in 2011 (Cozens, 2018). Although since 2011 there has been a significant drop in the crime
rates relating to property thefts. Section 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 defines theft as a
commitment of an offence of appropriating property of someone else dishonestly with the
intention of depriving the person of the property permanently. Burglary is defined under the
section 311 of the Criminal Code as an offence committed by a person by trespassing in a
building with an intention to commit theft of any property, cause or threaten to cause harm
anyone or cause any damage to property. In the observed case the perpetrator has been accused
of one shop theft and has further been found to be previously accused of a burglary happened a
year ago. The consistent nature of offence of the perpetrator has been mentioned in the court for
which the Judge ordered for a breach of corrections. The accused was further found to be a
homeless who lost his benefits and is a heroin user. The Homelessness Bill 2013 passed in
accordance with the right to living under the Human Rights 2011 outlines the recognition of a

5WELFARE LAW
homeless person or a person with a risk of being homeless with an intention to reduce the
problems of homelessness and support the people (Parliament of Australia, 2013).
Conclusion
Two judgements were given in relation to the consistent nature of the offence. The
perpetrator was given a charge that could result in an imprisonment of minimum 10 months of
imprisonment for his offence relating to burglary and shop theft and a consideration of intensive
correction order. The accommodation of the perpetrator was confirmed by the court under the
Homelessness Bill. The perpetrator was further advised to start treatment for use of heroin. The
drug abusing nature of the perpetrator was found to be a question of risk by the judge for the
consistent nature of his offense. The perpetrator accepted his sentence.
It can be concluded that the judgement in this case is proper and suitable. The judge and
the prosecutors considered all the aspects of the case before passing a judgement. The judge
considered the seriousness of the offense as well as its consistent nature. The relation of the
offender with the burglary case arisen last year was also considered. The court not only
considered the legal aspects but the welfare ground of the case was also put into consideration.
The problem of accommodation and drug abuse of the offender has been considered before
reaching a decision in the matter and subsequent judgement was passed to resolve these two
issues. Overall the judgement can be stated as just and fair.

6WELFARE LAW
Reference
Clancey, G., & Lulham, R. (2014). The new South Wales property crime decline. Current Issues
in Criminal Justice, 25(3), 839-851.
Cozens, P. (2018). Shoplifting in Small Stores: A Qualitative Case Study in Perth, Western
Australia. In Retail Crime (pp. 155-177). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Criminal Code 2002
Flatau, P., Wood, L., MacKenzie, D., Spinney, A., Zaretzky, K., Valentine, K., & Habibis, D.
(2015). The Inquiry into the funding of homelessness services in Australia. AHURI Inquiry
Discussion paper.
Human Rights Act 2011 (Cth)
Parliament of Australia. (2013). Homelessness Bill 2013 [and] Homelessness (Consequential
Amendments) Bill 2013 – Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/bd152
Legislation. (2013). Homelessness Bill 2013. Retrieved from
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013B00149