Critical reasons to hire a Toronto theft lawyer to defend yourself against theft or property charges

Charges of theft are often accompanied by charges of possession of property obtained by crime.  There is a threshold in the Criminal Code where charges of theft are proceeded with more seriously after the amount allegedly stolen is over $5,000. Often, the police charge a person accused of theft with a number of counts of theft, even counts that are difficult or impossible to prove, and allow the courts to settle what can actually be proven.

The experience of being charged with numerous counts of theft and possession of property obtained by crime is difficult.  When theft occurs from a vehicle or home, the police will often proceed with charges of break & enter, which are viewed much more seriously by the Courts. Those that are repeat offenders can have a difficult time securing bail.

When charged with such offences, it is important to retain a criminal lawyer to carefully review the case against you and determine what the issues with proof would be for the Crown at trial, as well as if there are any Charter issues.  Charges of theft, break & enter and other property offences can often be difficult to prove because they rely on circumstantial evidence, such as fingerprints or witness identification that has been demonstrated to be unreliable and has led to wrongful convictions on a number of occasions.  If you have been charged with a property offence it is vital to retain a criminal lawyer immediately.

Related Representative Work

R v. K.P.

Youth client charged with break & enter to commit and possession of property obtained by crime had his charges withdrawn at 2201 Finch Court.  The break and enter involved the theft of over $10,000 from a home.  The Crown withdrew the charge due to credibility issues with respect to the main witness and the difficulty in proving involvement in the theft that were raised prior to trial as well as an unconstitutional search of my client.

R v. S.W.

Client charged with robbery had charges withdrawn at 2201 Finch Court.  The defence raised issues with respect to client’s involvement as a party to the offence and the Crown chose not to proceed.

R v. B.F.

Client charged with break and enter to commit and theft over had charge stayed by the Crown at Old City Hall in Toronto.  The Crown alleged that my client was responsible for a break & enter into a home and the theft of $50,000 worth of contents.  As a result of forensic inquiries by the defence that weakened the Crown’s case, the Crown chose not to proceed to a preliminary inquiry.

R v. T.C.

Client charged with theft under x 9 had charges withdrawn in Newmarket.

R v. K.E.

Client charged with theft under had charge withdrawn at College Park.

R v. W.M.

Client charged with possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 was acquitted after a judge alone trial in Brantford.  The defence raised identification issues and knowledge issues by cross-examining the investigating officer and the Judge was not satisfied that the charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.