Theft by finding!

[plugger47]

So after getting repeatedly spanked in the 'AFL players a bit rich' thread, you thought you'd try again?



It is also not especially relevant to Ch 7's culpability- there is no doubt that at some point the documents were stolen, its impossible to see how ch7 could have believed otherwise. They still went ahead and bought this stolen property, and voila.

Glad to see the presumption of innocence and the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove guilt played such a big part in your legal education.
Theft by finding is generally a minor criminal offence. The lady and gent in question if convicted can expect a small fine and their little profit from the enterprising exercise will be claimed under proceeds of crime. A recent case of theft from finding went to the VSC on appeal resulted in a $100 fine. Maybe the Victorian coppers can get back to pinching some real villians, such as drug dealers. Even ones that play for AFL clubs.

 

[plugger47]

Thats what I assumed by 'found' when I saw he barracked for the pies



Small point, but she didn't find them floating in the ocean.

Floating in the gutter? Critical point is establishing the owner and if they had abandoned the goods. The owner of medical records is the doctor or medical facility. If they disposed of them in a rubbish bin (been known to happen) or on a rubbish tip or in a gutter then the finder takes a title of the goods. There is no theft in scavenging abandoned goods.

 

[HAWKS HEROES]

Finders keepers?

no i do not think so

 

[bourbons]

Floating in the gutter? Critical point is establishing the owner and if they had abandoned the goods. The owner of medical records is the doctor or medical facility. If they disposed of them in a rubbish bin (been known to happen) or on a rubbish tip or in a gutter then the finder takes a title of the goods. There is no theft in scavenging abandoned goods.

I don't think maritime law applies on land, is the point I was trying to make.

 

[plugger47]

I don't think maritime law applies on land, is the point I was trying to make.

Maritime salvaging is analagous to scavenging and taking legal title of abandoned goods.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Maritime salvaging is analagous to scavenging and taking legal title of abandoned goods.

Which is very relevant to the case I'd say.

 

[plugger47]

Which is very relevant to the case I'd say.

I'll make this as simple for you as I can:
1. Medical records are owned by the nmedical practitioner.
2. Medical records are chattels.
3. If chattels are abandoned the finder, if acting honestly, gains good title against all but the true owner.
4. The abandonment of a chattel by the true owner indicates an unwillingness to assert that superior title against a subsequent
possessor.
5, The subsequent possessor has therefor in such a case not stolen the chattels.

And finally the players named in the documents have no property or rights in this case. Get it?

 

[Motown]

Floating in the gutter? Critical point is establishing the owner and if they had abandoned the goods. The owner of medical records is the doctor or medical facility. If they disposed of them in a rubbish bin (been known to happen) or on a rubbish tip or in a gutter then the finder takes a title of the goods. There is no theft in scavenging abandoned goods.

I can accept goods found in a rubbish bin, skip on public property or tip could reasonably be expected to be abandoned. I don't think the same could be said of the gutter, especially if it is the gutter outside or in the vicinity of the 24 hr clinic in question.

 

[plugger47]

I can accept goods found in a rubbish bin, skip on public property or tip could reasonably be expected to be abandoned. I don't think the same could be said of the gutter, especially if it is the gutter outside or in the vicinity of the 24 hr clinic in question.

Fair enough. That's a matter of fact. Just pointing out that the issue doesn't warrant the posse and the lynch mob

 

[HAWKS HEROES]

I can accept goods found in a rubbish bin, skip on public property or tip could reasonably be expected to be abandoned. I don't think the same could be said of the gutter, especially if it is the gutter outside or in the vicinity of the 24 hr clinic in question.

i reckon stolen somehow is more of what happened then in the gutter

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

Glad to see the presumption of innocence and the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove guilt played such a big part in your legal education.
Theft by finding is generally a minor criminal offence. The lady and gent in question if convicted can expect a small fine and their little profit from the enterprising exercise will be claimed under proceeds of crime. A recent case of theft from finding went to the VSC on appeal resulted in a $100 fine. Maybe the Victorian coppers can get back to pinching some real villians, such as drug dealers. Even ones that play for AFL clubs.

If you are in possession of something as inherently confidential as someone else's medical records, and there is no suggestion they've given them to you, and you've made no attempt to return them to their owner, and the owner has no idea how they left their possession, then those facts alone could be enough to establish a beyond reasonable doubt case against you. The onus remains with prosecution, but in the absence of a pretty convincing alternative story, the undisputed facts are enough to discharge the prosecution's burden.

But I'm not talking about whether the particular woman is actually going to be found guilty, anyway.

I'm talking about whether channel 7 knew or believed they were stolen- and as I said, anyone with half a brain who is offered a third party's medical records dealing with a subject that third party would definitely not want to be made public is going to believe they are stolen- there is just no other sensible explanation. It's the moral and legal equivalent of having someone flog you a set of credit cards in other people's names. Just because you didn't actually sit in a court and watch someone get sentenced for having stolen them doesn't let you off the hook for a receiving charge.

 

[Murray]

If you are in possession of something as inherently confidential as someone else's medical records, and there is no suggestion they've given them to you, and you've made no attempt to return them to their owner, and the owner has no idea how they left their possession, then those facts alone could be enough to establish a beyond reasonable doubt case against you. The onus remains with prosecution, but in the absence of a pretty convincing alternative story, the undisputed facts are enough to discharge the prosecution's burden.

But I'm not talking about whether the particular woman is actually going to be found guilty, anyway.

I'm talking about whether channel 7 knew or believed they were stolen- and as I said, anyone with half a brain who is offered a third party's medical records dealing with a subject that third party would definitely not want to be made public is going to believe they are stolen- there is just no other sensible explanation. It's the moral and legal equivalent of having someone flog you a set of credit cards in other people's names. Just because you didn't actually sit in a court and watch someone get sentenced for having stolen them doesn't let you off the hook for a receiving charge.

That in essence is correct.

However, did 7 pay for the documents ie receive stolen property or, did they pay for the women to read the documents, in which case they received nothing.

 

[buddy23]

Kitty, if you left your mobile phone/purse/wallet on the train, someone found it and then despite the fact that it contained your name and address, pawned it, how would you feel?

This is the legal area that "theft by finding" aims to address. When there is something to identify the owner by and you sell it anyway. Perfectly reasonable charge.

 

[Motown]

That in essence is correct.

However, did 7 pay for the documents ie receive stolen property or, did they pay for the women to read the documents, in which case they received nothing.

They pay $3000 for a silhouetted character to answer some questions in a 2 min piece? Sign me up!

Seriously, I'm not sure how far that'll fly. It's like the guy who used to sell books with a free pool table to get around Sunday trading hrs. In my mind, it'd be difficult to convince many that the broadcasting talents of this silhouetted person is worth that rate regardless of the information she's conveying.

 

[Mr Lizard]

That in essence is correct.

However, did 7 pay for the documents ie receive stolen property or, did they pay for the women to read the documents, in which case they received nothing.

Police got a warrant and seized them from Seven's offices didn't they?

 

[plod]

Port Adelaide should be charged under this theft by finding law after stealing a few games this year...

 

[Mr Lizard]

I'll make this as simple for you as I can:
1. Medical records are owned by the nmedical practitioner.
2. Medical records are chattels.
3. If chattels are abandoned the finder, if acting honestly, gains good title against all but the true owner.
4. The abandonment of a chattel by the true owner indicates an unwillingness to assert that superior title against a subsequent
possessor.
5, The subsequent possessor has therefor in such a case not stolen the chattels.

And finally the players named in the documents have no property or rights in this case. Get it?

Thanks for making that real simple for me, although I did get it before your explanation.

Again I'll say: Scavenging and taking legal title of abandoned goods is not very relevant to this case.

 

[Fabulous]

I am interested in the "legal" opinions in this and other threads. Are you all suggesting that the "7" legal advisers got it wrong? In which case will their insurance company be working as hard as everyone else in this saga to find a get out clause?

 

[luthor]

Have to say I always thought it was finder keepers but obviously not.

Finders keepers???

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

Worked in the media, did you?...................maybe that explains your total absence of ethical standards

Forget the law...."we're going with the Finders Keepers defence"

Any shred of credibility you may have had on this topic has vanished by virtue your self admitted ignorance.

 

[Dorval6]

Is quite a commonly used offence in fact.

Quite often used for the unemployed bum who turns up with 20 Ipods to sell at the pub and then say's "I found then sitting on the footpath one night outside the Harvey Norman store with the broken window!".

 

[luthor]

Is quite a commonly used offence in fact.

Quite often used for the unemployed bum who turns up with 20 Ipods to sell at the pub and then say's "I found then sitting on the footpath one night outside the Harvey Norman store with the broken window!".

Or .... "found it in a gutter m'lud"

Not much different to the old "fell off the back of a truck" defense

 

[Frederlick]

Funny how all the bleeding hearts crying about ch 7's ethics have not bothered to mention the woman charged with theft has been charged under a little used law of Theft by Finding, so it seems they are not disputing that she found the docs but alleging that she assumed ownership after finding them which is not allowed.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22324929-661,00.html

Police have since charged two people over the theft of the documents after officers seized them in a raid on Seven's Docklands offices.

The woman is alleged to have committed an offence known as "theft by finding".

The documents were reported stolen hours after Channel 7 broadcast allegations of drug abuse at the Melbourne club, citing the medical records as evidence.

Seven named the drugs and the club, but not the players. Those details now cannot be published by court order.

An injunction preventing public identification of the players and other details stands until a further court hearing tomorrow.

Wouldn't it be great if the police where so quick to find and sort out drug dealers, oh wait they haven't got the AFLPA whineing like old molls when in fact their own members have also broken the law. Will the players mentioned also be charged? Imagine the wailing and beating of chests then.

 

[Frederlick]

Oh, one more thing, I'll bet the channel 7 QC does such a good job that this women will become Australian of the year. Why are they even bothering to prosecute such a nothing case? Lets take a look at what happened. A drug clinic lost some docs from an organisation that doesn't report drug use by their employees to the police and they are 'stolen' and then the the people who stole them are charged but the drug users are not, and the AFLPA are actually trying to claim the moral high ground?

 

[zero]

possession is nine tenths of the law.... but credit cards and personal information sit comfortably in that upper percentile.

my credit cards still belong to me, even if you found them or bought them

 

[Rourke]

In Victoria-

72 Basic definition of theft
(1) A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it.

...

That's not some kind of bizarre, obscure offence, its a definition of stealing which is followed in most other common law and code jurisdictions.

Dunno about Victoria, but the analagous offence is a fairly popular charge used by police in WA, because it's very easy to prove.

I agree with your assessment of this law, but the main thrust of it is to stop someone "permanently depriving" the owner of the item. It seems to me that a printout of a medical record (i.e., not the original information which still belongs to the footballer) is not something which fits this definition. If they were unique hand-written notes with intrinsic value per se, they might have a case, but I think you'll find if Vic Police can't find evidence to upgrade this charge in a hurry they'll drop it. Very weak case for prosecution.