Legal Defences

Claim of Right Defence

The Legal Defence of Claim of Right in Victoria

Claim of right applies when the accused holds an honest but mistaken belief that they have a legal right over the money or property that they have appropriated. It may be used as a legal defence to any stealing charge that requires an element of dishonesty to be proven.

claim of right defense | claim of right legal definition | what is claim of right

Icon Wp
Charged with a Criminal Offence or Under Investigation?

We are available 24/7 and here to help

What is the Claim of Right Legal Defence?

In Victoria, claim of right may be a valid legal defence in criminal offences alleging appropriation of property. Such offences might include theft, robbery, burglary, fraud, destruction or damage to property and obtaining property or financial advantage by deception.

A claim of right applies when the accused holds an honest but mistaken belief that they have a legal right (i.e. ownership or entitlement) over the money or property that they have appropriated. However, it must be a legal right to the property, not just a moral right.

Regardless of whether the accused took the money or property for themselves or on behalf of another person, the claim of right defence is available if they honestly believe that they or the other person had a legitimate legal right to the property in question.

Successfully proving claim of right negates dishonesty. However, it does not negate criminal responsibility for offences relating to the use of force against others (e.g. assault).

Claim of Right Legal Definition in Victorian Criminal Law

Claim of right legal definition in victorian common law dictates that a person acts “dishonestly” if they act without any claim of legal right (R v Salvo [1980]; R v Bonollo [1981]  and  R v Brow [1981]).

To prove a charge of theft under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused “Dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

However, s73(2)(a) of the Act goes on to state that the appropriation of property cannot be considered dishonest if the accused:

Had an honest belief that they had a legal right to deprive the other person of the property (on behalf of themselves or a third party);
Had an honest belief that they would have the consent of the property owner (if they knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it); or
Appropriated the property with the honest belief that the owner of the property could not be discovered through reasonable steps.

Therefore, in Victoria, claim of right can potentially be used as a defence to any stealing charge related to property or money. If any of the above circumstances can be proven by the defendant, the element of dishonesty will be negated.

Proving Claim of Right in Court

It is the responsibility of the defendant to raise the claim of right defence in evidence. That is, the defence must adduce or identify sufficient evidence which establishes that the accused held an honest belief at the time of committing the offence and did not act dishonestly. Once the defence has been raised, the prosecution carries the persuasive burden of refuting the claim of right beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, the prosecution must attempt to prove that the accused did not have an honest belief of legal right and acted dishonestly at the time of the offence.

The Court uses a subjective test to determine whether the accused in fact held an honest belief of legal right. The test is based on what the accused actually believed or knew at the time of committing the alleged offence. The belief itself does not necessarily have to be reasonable. However, the Court may consider whether it was reasonable and plausible for accused to hold that belief honestly.

If the accused wishes to invoke the claim of right defence, the claim must extend to all of the money or property that was appropriated. The claim cannot extend to only part of the money or property. As such, if the accused believes that they have a partial right to the property, the claim of right defence cannot be relied upon.

Further, the Court is not concerned whether or not the accused believed they had the right to use the methods they did in appropriating the property or money. The Court is only concerned with the accused’s honest belief that they had a legal right to the property. In cases that involve the accused using violence to appropriate the property, although claim of right offers a defence to stealing charges, it does not negate criminal responsibility for offences relating to the use of force against others (e.g. assault) (R v Salvo [1980]).

Obtaining Legal Advice

Claim of right is a complex legal defence and requires professional consideration. If you have been charged or are under investigation for allegedly committing a criminal offence, please contact our team at Sher Criminal Lawyers. We will help you achieve the best possible outcome by applying our extensive legal experience and expertise. One of our criminal law specialists will assess whether claim of right or any other defence is relevant to your case before planning a unique and calculated legal strategy. We are available 24/7 and offer free consultations by way of Zoom, Facetime or in person at our Melbourne and Moorabbin offices.

TRUSTWORTHY

NO HIDDEN FEES

APPROACHABLE

Proven Results

FAQs

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Stlico Cta Logo

Charged with a Criminal Offence or Under Investigation?

We are available 24/7 and here to help

Share This

Select your desired option below to share a direct link to this page

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on skype
Share on pinterest
Share on email