• Vancouver at night

Shoplifting / Theft under $5000

The Charge

People accused of shoplifting may be charged with theft under $5000, pursuant to s. 322 of the Criminal Code. A shoplifting conviction can have very serious consequences, including being denied entry to the United States and not being employable in certain fields such as the financial and government sectors. For people who are not citizens or permanent residents, a shoplifting conviction will lead to removal from Canada. Over the years, many of our clients have expressed regret and shock in the aftermath of being charged with shoplifting. Fortunately, we are often able to resolve shoplifting charges resulting in no criminal record for our clients.

The Investigation

The Criminal Code describes theft as “taking or fraudulently converting anything from another person with the intent to deprive the owner of that thing.” Theft is committed when, with intent to steal something, the accused “moves it.” In the context of a shoplifting charge, the Crown will typically call a store employee or a loss prevention officer to testify that they observed the accused select an item belonging to the store, conceal it in some fashion, and walk past a cash desk without offering to pay. Typically, when a store security person makes such an observation, they will affect a “citizen’s arrest” and detain the suspected shoplifter for police. Often, store security will look for any video surveillance recordings to back up their observations. It is common practice for police to release most shoplifting suspects with a Promise to Appear in Provincial Court at a future date.

Many of our clients have expressed surprise that retailers and police would actually pursue theft under $5000 against them for a relatively small shoplifting offence. In fact, most retailers in British Columbia have a policy to prosecute all shoplifters, including people suspected of making false returns or switching price tags on products. British Columbia prosecutors have a policy of approving charges against all persons when they receive evidence of a crime that will lead to a “substantial likelihood of a conviction.”

Recent Successes

R. vs. R.C. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Criminal Harassment; Breach of a recognizance.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate to resolve this domestic harassment by ending the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon. our client entering into a Peace Bond for a period of 12 months. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.N. – RCMP Investigation

Charge: Possession of child pornography.
Issue: Whether police would be able to prove that our client was the only person that had access to the IP address on which the unlawful material was downloaded.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to the police investigator that led the investigator to close the file with no charges recommended against our client. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for the court to enter a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation and was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court to grant our client a conditional discharge.  No criminal conviction.

R. vs. T. F. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Breach of Probation (no contact).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client intended to breach the "no contact" order that he was subject to.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that our client bumped into the complainant accidentally. Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.X. – Insurance Fraud Investigation.

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: In light of the rehabilitative steps our client completed, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with this child discipline/assault case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to rely on the extraordinary circumstances of the case and our client's commitment to ongoing family counselling. He was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: In light of the rehabilitative steps our client completed, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with this child discipline/assault case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to rely on the extraordinary circumstances of the case and our client's commitment to ongoing family counselling. He was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.L. – ICBC Investigation

Charges: Failing to remain at the scene of an accident.
Issue: Whether our client was obligated to provide a possibly incriminating  statement to the adjuster that could have led to criminal charges and a loss of  insurance coverage.
Result:  Mr. Mines was able to provide the required information to ICBC on our client's behalf. No charges were  recommended. No loss of insurance coverage.

R. vs. R. L. – New Westminster Supreme Court (jury).

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: The credibility and reliability of the complainant and  our client who both testified in this historic sexual assault case.
Result: After  9 hours of deliberations, the jury was deadlocked and could not reach an unanimous decision. No conviction. The trial judge remitted the matter back to court to set a new trial.

R. vs. S.M.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After gearing Mr. Johnson's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a $100 fine and a 3 year driving prohibition. No criminal record. No jail.

R. vs. S.G. – Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the investigating RCMP member to not forward criminal charges after we settled the matter civilly on our client's behalf. No criminal record.

R. v. J.D. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr.Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to refer our client to the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.  

R. vs. C.L. – Civil Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud/Theft from employer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to negotiate repayment on our client's behalf and obtained a civil release from the employer. No charges were forwarded to Crown counsel. No criminal record.

The Defence

Here at Mines & Company, we are always pleased when clients contact us immediately after being charged with shoplifting. This is because we can offer these clients the very best potential outcome – the chance of persuading Crown counsel to not approve the charge at all. To understand this, one must understand some basics about the Court Process. Contrary to popular belief, police do not actually “charge” suspects. Instead, police “recommend charges” to Crown counsel, who, if they see there is a “substantial likelihood of a conviction,” will approve the charge. Approving the charge is what creates the beginning of a record in terms of criminal databases such as the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC).

We’ve had many successful cases where we’ve been able to persuade Crown counsel to not approve shoplifting charges. We are able to achieve this excellent result in situations where clients have contacted us early in the process; prior to Crown receiving the police file. In such situations we take a full background briefing from our client including their family and work circumstances; any financial, physical or mental health issues that may have impacted their decision to shoplift. Where Crown counsel concludes that we have presented an appropriate case, they will, rather than prosecuting the individual, allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program, which is, literally, an alternative to the court system where a person can take responsibility for a relatively minor criminal act in a manner that results in no criminal record. Although alternative measures involves an admission of responsibility and may involve conditions such as community work service, the impact is significantly less severe than a criminal record for shoplifting.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.