Boy facing court for "receiving stolen Freddo"

[ninwa]

Law gone mad?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26355156-421,00.html

A 12-YEAR-OLD Aboriginal boy has been charged with receiving a 70 cent Freddo Frog chocolate allegedly stolen from a from a supermarket in regional Western Australia.

and

Mr Collins said the boy had missed an earlier court date because of a family misunderstanding and was apprehended at 8am on a school day and locked in a cell in "appalling'' conditions for several hours.

Call me cynical, but when I saw the headline I immediately thought "I bet he's Aboriginal"

[periwinkle]

 here, a man faces 5 years in gaol for possession of a firearm when he found a shotgun lying around and handed it in to the police
           
                 ...

[ninwa]

...

you're kidding

[periwinkle]

   sadly not

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/son-of-gun.html#links

[ninwa]

Disgusting!

ahhh, strict liability offences was my essay question on my criminal law exam! If only this had happened a week earlier....

[TrueLight]

wow this is bizarre

[dejan91]

This kind of stuff deterred me from pursuing a career in law... Where's the equality here? Fairness?

[lynt.br]

The danger in jumping to a conclusion with these media storied is that the media often spin it in a way that provokes outrage or emotion because that generates interest and thus sells copies. They often omit the context so the story appears ludicrous and irrational. While I'm in no way justifying the decision if it is indeed as simple as the story makes it seem, I'm just saying you should keep an open mind that there are other possibilities, considering the only insight we have is from the boy's defence lawyer and do not hear the police's justifications or reasoning.

For instance, perhaps this kid has a history of other similar incidents or has been a general menace to society in the past. I personally find the fact that he missed the court hearing because of a "misunderstanding" highly suspicious. Is it possible that the decision to have him tried was precipitated by other context factors omitted from the media story and not just the 70 cent Freddo?

Regardless I hope the case works out for the best and justice is duly and appropriately administered.

[Collin Li]

The danger in jumping to a conclusion with these media storied is that the media often spin it in a way that provokes outrage or emotion because that generates interest and thus sells copies. They often omit the context so the story appears ludicrous and irrational. While I'm in no way justifying the decision if it is indeed as simple as the story makes it seem, I'm just saying you should keep an open mind that there are other possibilities, considering the only insight we have is from the boy's defence lawyer and do not hear the police's justifications or reasoning.

For instance, perhaps this kid has a history of other similar incidents or has been a general menace to society in the past. I personally find the fact that he missed the court hearing because of a "misunderstanding" highly suspicious. Is it possible that the decision to have him tried was precipitated by other context factors omitted from the media story and not just the 70 cent Freddo?

Regardless I hope the case works out for the best and justice is duly and appropriately administered.

+1

Good point. I didn't think of it myself (was inclined to fall into the trap of sensationalism -- it's too easy).

[Gloamglozer]

Update:

Police have been forced into an embarrassing back down after a national furore over charges against a 12-year-old Northam boy accused of receiving a stolen Freddo frog worth about 70 cents, announcing this morning that they would offer to drop the prosecution.

A spokesman for Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan confirmed that two charges of receiving stolen property, the second relating to a novelty sign, would be withdrawn on the condition that the boy agreed to have the matter referred to a juvenile justice team.

Mr O’Callaghan’s intervention comes less than 24 hours after Acting Supt Peter Halliday defended the decision to take the boy to court and said he was satisfied the actions of police were “entirely appropriate”.

The boy’s case attracted national headlines after the Aboriginal Legal Service described the charges as “outrageously trivial” and raised concerns that the police handling of the matter highlighted problems with the over-representation of indigenous youths in the justice system.

The boy, who pleaded not guilty to the receiving charges in the Northam Children’s Court yesterday, had received two previous cautions and a juvenile justice referral.

But the spokesman for Mr O’Callaghan said a review of the case had revealed that the receiving charges against the boy arose from incidents which had allegedly occurred before his referral to the juvenile justice team on an unrelated charge.

On that basis, the boy had to be treated as though he had not had the benefit of a previous juvenile justice referral.

The case prompted WA Children’s Commissioner Michelle Scott to raise concerns that authorities were not complying with the provisions of the Young Offenders Act which required children to be diverted away from the criminal justice system.

Source: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6482202/police-offer-to-drop-freddo-charges/

[ninwa]

The danger in jumping to a conclusion with these media storied is that the media often spin it in a way that provokes outrage or emotion because that generates interest and thus sells copies. They often omit the context so the story appears ludicrous and irrational. While I'm in no way justifying the decision if it is indeed as simple as the story makes it seem, I'm just saying you should keep an open mind that there are other possibilities, considering the only insight we have is from the boy's defence lawyer and do not hear the police's justifications or reasoning.

For instance, perhaps this kid has a history of other similar incidents or has been a general menace to society in the past. I personally find the fact that he missed the court hearing because of a "misunderstanding" highly suspicious. Is it possible that the decision to have him tried was precipitated by other context factors omitted from the media story and not just the 70 cent Freddo?

Regardless I hope the case works out for the best and justice is duly and appropriately administered.

You make some really valid points which I hadn't considered. I admit I often get swayed by mainstream media without knowing all the facts (I'm a terrible law student, haha)

The reason I was so disgusted by this was:
1) It was a "receiving stolen property" charge. He didn't even steal the Freddo himself.
2) Rehabilitation is one of the primary aims of the criminal law. By convicting him so young, he could be put on a path in life which hinders his ability to turn his life around. Imagine how hard doing some things might be with a criminal record.