Handbag snatcher spared conviction

137393_03

By Cam Lucadou-Wells

A man has been spared conviction after snatching a woman’s handbag loaded with $4677 cash at Dandenong Plaza.
Shortly before the theft on 23 May, the woman and her husband had just withdrawn more than $4000 and placed it in her handbag, a court heard.
While the woman waited for her husband in the car park, the thief wordlessly ran up from behind and grabbed the bag from her hands.
The accused was pursued by the husband and another man, crossing Stud Road and dumping the handbag with some of the cash and other contents at New Street.
He was soon arrested by police, hiding in a nearby driveway with the outstanding $2600 cash in his pocket.
In making full admissions, the man told police that “I took the money I needed and left the bag”.
“I needed a little bit of money today.”
The man’s lawyer told Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 10 July that the “ashamed” accused had been threatened over an outstanding debt at the time.
“The main threat was to tell his family.
“He is somebody who has made a very bad decision under very pressing financial circumstances.”
The accused, a refugee who arrived in Australia in 2014, was still “finding his feet” in the community and had no prior criminal history.
Magistrate Barry Schultz noted the man could easily have been charged with robbery.
“I dare say in his family and his culture, this theft would not be highly regarded.
“In other places in the world, the consequences of theft would be horrific.”
Mr Schultz said the impact on the woman and her family could have been serious had the accused escaped with the cash.
“Most people in this community are relatively poor, hard-working people.
“That amount of money might have represented that family’s life savings withdrawn for a special reason. Perhaps to pay for medical treatment for a sick child, we don’t know.
“You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You’ve brought your family no credit.”
The man was put on a 12-month community corrections order including 75 hours of unpaid work.
Mr Schultz didn’t impose a conviction because of the man’s youthful age of 19, but warned the man that he faced a possible jail term if he breached the CCO.