Stealing

On 30 March 2015, Western Australia police (WAPOL) officers began issuing $500 on-the-spot fines, referred to as 'criminal code infringement notices' or 'CCINs' for two offences: stealing anything up to the value of $500, and disorderly conduct. The CCIN regime was progressively rolled out across the State. Although the past three years have seen exponential growth in the number of CCINs being issued by WAPOL officers, preliminary research suggests WA legal practitioners and community legal organisations are largely unaware of the breadth and depth of the impact which these on-the-spot fines are having on the WA community-particularly on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and vulnerable populations. This is not surprising. The civil (rather than criminal) nature of the expiation processes, the lack of protections inherent in the CCIN regime, and the wide and opaque use of discretion in the issue (and withdrawal) of CCINs by WAPOL officers, make CCINs particularly resistant to public attention and scrutiny. It is, indeed, the strong discretion-dependence of the CCIN regime and the concomitant lack of oversight which make it so vital for WA legal practitioners and community organisations supporting vulnerable people to have clear and unambiguous information regarding the legal and administrative mechanics of CCINs; the legal (and non-legal) options available for people who receive CCINs; and the key findings of the recent WA Ombudsman's review of the CCIN regime. This article addresses this gap in practitioner and community knowledge by providing a practical guide to, and conducting a critical analysis of, CCINs.

Burglary and stealing are crimes that have a significant impact and cost on its victims and society. To mitigate such crimes, property marking is a situational crime prevention strategy that attempts to prevent through dissuasion. There are many forms of property marking, yet there is limited research of its efficacy. Where there have been such studies, there has been some indications of success. Therefore, the study assessed the efficacy of property marking to reduce burglary and stealing crimes.
The study undertook a quantitate approach using non-equivalent control groups to assess the geo-spatial impact of property marking when applied at a saturation level. Three housing groups were established (N878), comprising an experimental (n278), adjacent (n300) and control (n300) groups, with significance measured using a Wald Chi-square method.
Results indicated that when property marking is applied at saturation levels (≥80%), both burglary and stealing crimes decreased significantly. Furthermore, that displacement for both burglary and stealing occurred in the adjacent area. Recommendations suggest that property marking should not be used in a sporadic manner; instead, targeted at an optimal saturation level. Such targeting should have the aim to target burglary and stealing hotspots and saturate these areas for property marking to work effectively.