# data[].attributes.body
Rules: a series of regulations that aim to moderate behaviours of members of societies or organisations

Legal: a set of rules that are formulated and regulated by the government, to ensure the safety and common goals of society

Non-legal rules: a set of rules are are created and enforced by a a non-government body such as a company

# data[].attributes.body
Welcome to the elective Law and Order, 2020. This subject is an introductory course into Legal Studies in Australia. Over the next two terms  we will explore the Legal System, Criminal Law and the Criminal Courtroom.
There will be three seperate assessment tasks.

# data[].attributes.body
Law and Order is a content heavy subject. This means you will be taking notes most lessons and this content will be assessed.

It is expected that you arrive to every class on time and with the appropriate resources. Decide how you will take notes, but make sure you keep them legible. All activities, practice questions and content notes are compulsory - you will not achieve an 'S' for this subject if you decide to not complete any of the assigned work

# data[].attributes.body
Distinguish
Differences only

Compare
Similarities and differences

Justify
Give reasons for

Illustrate
Use an example to explain

Identify
Simply state the point

Explain
Give details to make points clear

Describe
Give detailed account

Outline
Overview of big ideas

# data[].attributes.body
Am I old enough?

# data[].attributes.body
Am I Old Enough?
Using the booklet below (produced by Victoria Legal Aid), recreate and complete the table attached in this post in your own notes.

# data[].attributes.body
Presentation that we went through in class

# data[].attributes.body
Social Cohesion
1. Provides safety within the community from potential offenders
2. Removes offenders from the greater society and punishes them (incarceration) for crimes they have committed

Protect the Rights of Individuals
1. Clear procedures of managing criminal offences through the police and court system
2. Clear procedure of resolving disputes

# data[].attributes.body
Tackling underage binge drinking: do we need tougher laws?

Read through the information in the attached article and answer the questions that follow.

# data[].attributes.body
5 Characteristics that shape whether a law will work.

1. An effective law reflects society’s values
2. An effective law is enforceable
3. An effective law is known
4. An effective law is clear and understood
5. An effective law is stable

# data[].attributes.body
For each of the following examples, research the law and make notes on how it can be considered an effective law.

1. New BAC laws - do as a class

2. Assisted dying

3. Puppy Farms

# data[].attributes.body
Criminal law -  set of laws that are decided on and enforced by the broader state

Civil Law- arbitrates disputes between citizens

# data[].attributes.body
Locate two articles in the media relating to criminal law and civil law.

Annotate each article, highlighting key legal terminology and making notes where needed.

# data[].attributes.body
Looking at the key differences in Criminal and Civil Law

# data[].attributes.body
With each of the five cases outlined in the posts below this one, answer the following:

a. Identify whether the case is a civil or a criminal one.

b. List three terms from the case information that support your answer to (a) and define those three terms.

c. Identify who will bear the burden of proof in the case and what the standard of proof will need to be.

# data[].attributes.body
Parliament focus on 4 key topics:
1. Making Laws - Statute law
2. Authorises government spending
3. Scrutinises government (national, state, local) activities
4. Debates national issues

# data[].attributes.body
Common law that is utilised in courts based on the precedent from the hierarchy of courts

# data[].attributes.body
Case files:

Research the following two cases and summarise in 5 dot points:

1. Snail in the bottle (precedent)

2. Studded belt case (stat. int)

Use your case files to answer the following questions.

1. Explain the operation of the doctrine of precedent as a source of common law. 3 marks.

2. Explain the role of courts in interpreting statutes to develop the law. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donoghue v. Stevenson, also known as the 'snail in the bottle case', is a significant case in Western law. The ruling in this case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged businesses to observe a duty of care towards their customers.

The events of the case took place in Paisley, Scotland in 1928. While attending a store, Ms May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer, purchased for her by a friend. The bottle was later discovered to contain a decomposing snail. Since the bottle was not made of clear glass, Donoghue consumed most of its contents before she became aware of the snail. She later fell ill and a physician diagnosed her with gastroenteritis.

Donoghue subsequently took legal action against Mr David Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer. She lodged a writ in the Court of Sessions, Scotland's highest civil court, seeking £500 damages.

Donoghue could not sue Stevenson for breach of contract because she had not purchased the drink herself. Instead, Donoghue's lawyers claimed that Stevenson had breached a duty of care to his consumers and caused injury through negligence. At the time, this area of civil law was largely untested. Stevenson's lawyers challenged Donoghue's action on the basis that no precedents existed for such a claim. They referred to an earlier action by Donoghue's lawyer, Mullen v. AG Barr, where a dead mouse was found in a bottle of soft drink; judges dismissed this action due to a lack of precedent.

Donoghue's initial action failed but she was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords (which, at the time, had the judicial authority to hear appellate cases). The leading judgement, delivered by Lord Atkin in 1932, established that Stevenson was responsible for the well-being of individuals who consumed his products, given that they could not be inspected.

The case was returned to the original court. Stevenson died before the case was finalised and Donoghue was awarded a reduced amount of damages from his estate.

The outcomes of Donoghue v. Stevenson established several legal principles and precedents:

Negligence. Firstly, the House of Lords ruling affirmed that negligence is a tort. A plaintiff can take civil action against a respondent if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property. Previously, the plaintiff had to demonstrate some contractual arrangement for negligence to be proven, such as the sale of an item or an agreement to provide a service. Since Donoghue had not purchased the drink, she could prove no contractual arrangement with Stevenson - yet Lord Atkin's judgement established that Stevenson was still responsible for the integrity of his product.

Duty of care. Secondly, the case established that manufacturers have a duty of care to the end consumers or users of their products. According to Lord Atkin's ratio decendi, "a manufacturer of products, which he sells... to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him... owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care". This precedent has evolved and now forms the basis of laws that protect consumers from contaminated or faulty goods. These protections began as common law but many have since been codified in legislation, such as the Trade Practices Act (Commonwealth, 1974).

Neighbour principle. Thirdly, the Donoghue v. Stevenson case produced Lord Atkin's controversial "neighbour principle", which extended the tort of negligence beyond the tortfeasor and the immediate party. It raised the question of exactly which people might be affected by negligent actions. In Donoghue's case, she had not purchased the ginger beer but had received it as a gift; she was a "neighbour" rather than a party to the contract. Atkin said of this principle: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in [mind] when I am [considering these] acts or omissions."

report this ad

© lawgovpol.com 2018. Content on this page may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Case study: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donoghue v. Stevenson, also known as the 'snail in the bottle case', is a significant case in Western law. The ruling in this case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged businesses to observe a duty of care towards their customers. The events of the case took place in Paisley, Scotland in 1928.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deing v Tarola was a 1993 case that showed how courts interpret statutes in relation to the definition of the Weapons Act. Facts Deing was wearing a black leather belt with raised studs, and was su…

# data[].attributes.body
Distinguish between the adversary system of trial and the inquisitorial system of trial. 4 marks.

Outline the role of the judge in the inquisitorial system. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the Victorian parliament website, find a recent law that was enacted in the past 2 years. Determine 5 dot points in relation to the law and what it aims to achieve.

Use this law to answer the following question:
Outline the legislative process that a proposed bill will need to satisfy before it is enacted as a law. 7 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
How can the public influence change?
- Changes in beliefs, values and attitudes
- changing social conditions
- advances in technology

What methods are there?
- petitions
- demonstrations
- courts

Social media influences

# data[].attributes.body
Research either Brodie's Law or Oscar's Law and create notes on the following:
- Summarise the case that give rise to the change in law
- Examine the influences for change
- Outline the change that occurred to the law

# data[].attributes.body
1. Distinguish between binding and persuasive precedent. 4 marks.

2. Describe one effect of statutory interpretation. 2 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Outline the structure of the Victorian parliament. 4 marks.

2. Describe the structure of the Commonwealth parliament. 4 marks.

3. Identify and explain one stage in the legislative process. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Distinguish between criminal law and civil law. 4 marks.

2. Identify the party who has the burden of proof in a criminal and civil case. 2 marks,

# data[].attributes.body
1. Describe three characteristics of an effective law. 6 marks.

2. Using an example to illustrate your answer, outline one characteristic of an effective law. 3 marks.

3. Justify the need for an effective law to to be enforceable. 2 marks.

4. 'The Victorian parliament has proposed a new law that would make it illegal for Victorians to dream about inappropriate activities.' Justify whether this proposed law would likely be effective. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Outline how the law provides for social cohesion. 2 marks.

2.  Justify the existence of laws within society. 2 marks.

3. Describe the role of laws in protecting the rights of individuals. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Distinguish between legal and non-legal rules. 2 marks.

2. Compare the role of laws with the role of rules within society. 4 marks.

3. Justify whether speed limits are considered a legal or non-legal rule. 2 marks.

4. Justify whether a due date for an assignment is considered a legal or non-legal rule. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Describe one reason for law reform. 2 marks.

2. Explain one recent change to the law. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the resource provided below, make notes under the following headings:

Under the ‘About Us’ section:

The Coroner’s Court (description)

The coroner’s responsibility

The relevant legislation

Under ‘In the Courtroom’:

Inquests (3 points)

Interested parties (who are they)

Findings

Recommendations

Legal representation there?)

Under ‘Orders and Rulings’:

What are the orders and rulings that can be made?

# data[].attributes.body
Outline the term ‘crime’. 2 marks.

Using an example, explain the elements of a crime. 4 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Justify the existence of a criminal law system. 4 marks.

Outline one reason for criminal law. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Describe the term, ‘criminal responsibility’. 2 marks.

Bobby, aged 12, has been accused of committing a crime.

Explain whether Bobby will be able to found guilty of this crime. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Murder is deemed one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed. For this task, you will investigate the elements needed to prove murder, a possible defence to murder, the likely punishment if found guilty, the impact on the victim and at least two statistics relating to this crime.

# data[].attributes.body
Arson is one of the most serious crimes against property. For this task, you will investigate the elements needed to prove arson, a defence that can be raised, the likely punishment if found guilty, the impact on the victim and at least two statistics relating to this crime.

# data[].attributes.body
Describe what is meant by crimes against the person. 2 marks.

Outline a crime that is considered a crime against the person. 2 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Describe what is meant by crimes against property. 2 marks

Outline a crime that is considered a crime against property. 2 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Examine one reason why someone may commit a crime. 3 marks.

Explain why crimes are committed in society. 4 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Describe what is meant by ‘police power’. 2 marks.

Explain two powers that police have. 4 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the resource provided, address the following questions:

1.  What does arrest mean?

2. When can someone be arrested?

3. Can a police officer arrest if they are off duty?

4. What police powers can be exercised when someone is in custody?

5. How long can someone be kept in custody?

6. How can the police execute an arrest warrant?

# data[].attributes.body
Distinguish between a police power and an individual right. 2 marks.

Explain two rights that an individual is entitled to during a criminal investigation and/or trial. 4 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Jim is 19 years old and decides to steal an iPOD from a local shop. He is observed by a store detective concealing the item and is apprehended as he leaves the store. He claims that he accidentally took the iPOD and offers to pay for it. Store security refuse and call the police. Jim is interviewed and this is recorded at the police station. Jim has several prior offences for similar offences.

Some of Jim’s rights are protected by the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities. Outline four of these rights and link them to this case.

# data[].attributes.body
Do Curphews breach the rights of young people?

Read the attached information regarding the proposal of introducing a curphew on young people & complete the activities that follow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content Skip to home page

Javascript must be enabled for the correct page display

Coronavirus update

For the latest news on the Court's response to COVID-19

Find out more

Online Hearings

In response to the State Government's restrictions to reduce the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19), all Coroners Court hearings, including inquests, will be convened via electronic and digital means where feasible.

Find out more

St Basil's Inquiry: Judicial Review Update

Please be advised that the matter of Konstantin Kontis v The Coroners Court of Victoria has been listed for a directions hearing at the Supreme Court.

Find out more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content Skip to home page Javascript must be enabled for the correct page display For the latest news on the Court's response to COVID-19 Find out more In response to the State Government's restrictions to reduce the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19), all Coroners Court hearings, including inquests, will be convened via electronic and digital means where feasible.

# data[].attributes.body
Investigating the Drug Court

Read the attached information regarding the operation of the Drug Court in Victoria & complete the activities that follow.

# data[].attributes.body
Consider the following offences and justify whether they would be considered a summary offence or an indictable offence.

a. Jessica has been charged with recklessly damaging property worth $1,000

b. Two brothers have been charged with the murder of their parents

c. Qui has been charged with kidnapping and raping a young woman

d. Gina has been found passing forged cheques

e. Antonio has been charged with stealing 50 computers worth $800 each

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is against the law to use, possess, cultivate or traffic a drug of dependence.

The penalties for using and possessing small quantities of illegal drugs are treated less seriously than for trafficking and cultivating drugs. Importing or exporting drugs is an offence under Commonwealth law.

Drugs of dependence

The more common drugs of dependence are:

There are long lists of the kinds of drugs that are prohibited in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

Possession of an illegal drug

Possession is one of the most common drug offences. Possession means having a drug on you or in a house or property you occupy. This includes cannabis growing anywhere on the premises. You can be charged with possession if drugs are found in a car you own or you are driving.

Police caution

If you are caught with a small quantity of cannabis or heroin and it is your first offence, you will usually get a warning (caution) instead of being charged with the offence. The police informant makes this decision. You will have to agree to have drug counselling and to attend a drug treatment centre. If you do not go along as agreed, you may be charged by police later.

For the police to prove a charge of possession in court, you must have known that the drug was there and have intended to possess it. Get legal advice before being interviewed by police.

Going to court for possession

Cannabis is a drug of dependence and these drugs are illegal.

Quantities of cannabis are defined as:

small quantity - up to 50 grams

traffickable quantity - 250 grams or over, or 10 plants

commercial quantity - 25 kilograms or over, or 100 plants

large commercial quantity - 250 kilograms or more, or 1000 plants

Whether you are guilty depends on the exact facts and circumstances of your case.

Note: if the police charge you with possession of cannabis, they may also charge you with use of cannabis. Use includes smoking, inhaling fumes, injecting or swallowing an illegal drug. The police can charge you if they saw you using or trying to use the cannabis that was in your possession. They can also charge you if they did not see you using but you admitted to using it.

It is still an offence to possess a quantity over 50 grams and under 250 grams. It is more serious to have over 50 grams but not necessarily considered a traffickable quantity.

If you have been charged with possessing more than 250 grams of cannabis or more, the police may have also charged you with trafficking cannabis. If you have been changed with trafficking cannabis, speak with a lawyer.

What does the prosecution have to prove?

The prosecution must have evidence that an offence occurred. For the offence of possession of cannabis, the police have to prove all of the following:

the offence occurred at a certain time and place

you are the offender

you had a substance in your possession

the substance was an illegal drug.

Your options at court

You have three options at court:

Possible defences

You may have a defence if:

the substance was not cannabis

the substance was not in your possession.

If the police found the substance in your purse, pockets, house and car or anywhere you have control over, the magistrate will treat this substance as being in your possession unless you can prove otherwise.

Can I adjourn the hearing?

You can ask the magistrate for an adjournment if you want to:

go into the diversion program

see a private lawyer.

Adjournments are hard to get for any other reason. The magistrate may say no.

Penalties

If you are found guilty of cannabis possession the magistrate may give you a fine. This depends on the amount of cannabis you pleaded guilty to possessing. If you pleaded guilty to possessing up to 50 grams of cannabis the magistrate could fine you up to five penalty units.

If the police also charged you with using cannabis, and the magistrate found you guilty, the magistrate could fine you up to five penalty units. This is on top of the penalty units for the possession charge.

If you were charged with possessing other illegal drugs, such as heroin, cocaine or ecstasy you can be fined up to 30 penalty units. You could also be sent to jail for up to one year.

You may need to convince the court that you did not possess the drug to sell, particularly if caught with a large quantity of the drug.

The magistrate can also choose to place you on an undertaking to behave well for a certain amount of time. The magistrate may attach some conditions such as requiring you to get drug counselling and treatment.

In deciding what penalties to give, the magistrate looks at:

how serious your offence is

if you have been found guilty of similar offences before

whether you have a drug addiction

what else is happening in your life.

Note: If charged with possessing a large quantity of an illegal drug you may have to make the court believe that you did not possess the drug in order to sell (traffick) the drug.

Court support services

Courts recognise that people who are addicted to illegal drugs need help and support to overcome this. If the magistrate believes that you need access to treatment for drug addiction instead of punishment, they may refer you off to get help from the Magistrates' Bail support program or the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP).

What else might happen if I am found guilty?

Forfeiture: If the police seized the cannabis, the police prosecutor will apply to the court for a forfeiture order. This means that the police will not return the cannabis to you.

Criminal record: What happens in court goes in your criminal record. The court and the police can see your criminal record. Sometimes they can let other people know what is in your criminal record. For example, a criminal record, especially with convictions, may make it harder for you to get some jobs or get visas to some countries.

Can I appeal the magistrate's decision?

If you do not agree with the decision you can appeal to the County Court. You have 28 days to do this. Get legal advice before you decide. You could get a higher penalty.

How do I pay a fine?

You can pay the fine at any Magistrates' Court. Go to the court counter and ask the staff for help.

Let the magistrate know if you might have trouble paying the fine. There are options. You can ask the magistrate to:

make a plan for you to pay bit by bit

give you community work instead of the fine.

If you do not pay, the court can issue a warrant for your arrest.

Drug trafficking

You could be charged with trafficking drug of dependence if you are caught:

with a large quantity of the drug

preparing (such as dividing the drugs into smaller packages) or manufacturing a drug

selling the drug

buying drugs for a friend.

Penalty for trafficking

The penalties are much higher for trafficking an illegal drug. They depend on the quantity you have and how old you are.

The maximum penalty for an adult is;

15 years jail and/or a fine of up to 1,800 penalty units, or

25 years jail and/or 3,000 penalty units for trafficking a commercial quantity of an illegal drug.

The maximum penalty for a person under 18 years old is 20 years in jail and/or a fine of up to 2,400 penalty units.
Get legal advice before being interviewed by police.
Cultivation

Cultivation is the offence of growing narcotic plants. These are cannabis, opium or cocoa plants.

The maximum penalty depends on whether you are found guilty of trafficking as well. These are indictable offences.

If you are charged with cultivation get legal advice before being interviewed by police.

Get help

Find out how you can get help with criminal offences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is against the law to use, possess, cultivate or traffic a drug of dependence. The penalties for using and possessing small quantities of illegal drugs are treated less seriously than for trafficking and cultivating drugs. Importing or exporting drugs is an offence under Commonwealth law.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the link provided, answer the following questions under the heading ‘Drug Possession’:

- Define drug possession

- What is a police caution?

- What does the prosecution have to prove?

-  What are your options at court?

-  What are the possible defences you can raise?

-  What penalties may be imposed?

-  What else might happen if you are found guilty?

-  What is drug trafficking?

-  What is the penalty for trafficking?

# data[].attributes.body
For this task, you will research the impact crime on the community, including victims.

Present your information as an infographic.

Requirements:

Definition of victim

3 statistics relating to crimes and/or victims of crimes

Different types/categories of victims that exist

The types of compensation that victims are entitled to

Services available to victims

Financial impact (3 factors to consider)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Victorian Government provides free day to day support to help manage the effects of crime, and to guide you through the legal process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Foreword | This paper presents up to date figures on the costs of a range of offences and crime as a whole in Australia. The costs assessed include medical costs, lost output, and intangible costs, which set a monetary value on pain, suffering and lost quality of life. Cost estimates are presented for homicide, assault, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, theft of vehicles, theft from vehicles, shop theft, other theft, criminal damage or vandalism, arson, fraud, drug offences, overall crime costs, and other costs, including criminal justice system costs, costs of victim assistance, security costs, household precaution costs, and insurance costs. Overall crime costs come to $19 billion, with additional costs (such as policing, prisons and security) adding nearly another $13 billion, giving a total estimated bill of nearly $32 billion per year. Fraud is the most costly crime, followed by violent crime (homicide, assault and sexual assault) and burglary.

The cost of the crimes covered here amounts to $19 billion. Other costs (such as policing, prisons and the security industry) add nearly another $13 billion. The total estimated bill is nearly $32 billion per year. Fraud is the most costly crime, followed by violent crime (homicide, assault and sexual assault) and burglary. The human cost of drug abuse is also high, even discounting crimes committed to support a drug habit.

The figures in this paper are based on many "behind the scenes" calculations. These are set out in a technical report (Mayhew 2003) which can be accessed at www.aic.gov.au/publications/tbp/tbp004.html. This makes the basis of the estimates transparent, which will be useful for updating estimates of costs when new information becomes available. While some categories are tenuous, the AIC would be willing to develop a project to conduct further analysis in certain categories (for example fraud, arson).
Adam Graycar
Director
No study, in Australia or elsewhere, has ever fully assessed the myriad costs of crime. Rather, the main focus has been on what countries spend on their criminal justice systems (usually a matter of public record), and on some of the more direct costs of crime. The Australian Institute of Criminology has previously generated estimates of the costs of crime in Australia (Walker 1992; 1997). This paper uses more up-to-date figures and includes some additional costs. Chief among these is an assessment of the monetary value of pain, suffering and lost quality of life - so-called "intangible" costs. Estimates of lost productivity are also included.

The empirical basis for assessing costs is weak in many cases. One difficulty is simply knowing the actual number of crimes to cost: the extent of shoplifting and fraud, for instance, is hard to pin down. Nor is the data for many cost components complete or necessarily sound. Some components are not amenable to costing. It is impossible to put a price on lost quality of life from fear of crime, for example, or on wider economic distortions such as lack of investment in high-crime areas.

Nonetheless, getting a bearing on the costs of crime is important. They set in better context the substantial resources spent trying to prevent crime and deal with offenders. Knowing what different crimes cost, rather than simply knowing their numbers, gives a better base for assessing where crime prevention efforts are best targeted. It is also essential to cost-benefit analysis, in which the costs of crime reduction initiatives are set against savings made from crimes prevented.

Average "unit" costs can show the impact of an average motor vehicle theft, for instance, relative to an average robbery. Average unit costs are given here, with the obvious caveat that costs for particular incidents will vary widely. It is also important to compare the overall costs of different types of crime, in order to see which have the biggest financial impact taking account of the number of crimes involved. For this reason, as many crime types as possible have been included. However, some get a lighter touch than others, because of paucity of information. There are also some offences that are not costed (see "Omissions" below).

The main principles of the approach taken to costing are outlined below. The accompanying technical report gives further information on the estimates made (available at http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tbp/1-20/tbp004.html).

Estimating the number of crimes

To assess the full impact of crime, one needs to estimate the actual number of crimes that occur rather than the number recorded by police. The approach here (following UK and US work) is to use victimisation survey figures to estimate the "real" level of crime. The survey data come mainly from the most recent Crime and Safety Survey (ABS 1999).

For each crime a "multiplier" is constructed which is the ratio between the survey-estimated number of crimes in 1997-98 and the number recorded by the police over the same period (with adjustments made to improve comparability). For instance, the police recorded 290,000 residential burglaries and attempts in 1997-98, whereas the Crime and Safety Survey (CSS) estimated about 800,000 - giving a ratio of 2.8, which is the appropriate "multiplier". This is then used to inflate (or multiply up) the number of recorded offences in Australia in 2001 (ABS 2002). The technical report discusses an alternative approach to estimating the number of crimes, used by Walker.

Some costing principles

The methodology here follows in broad outline current work in the US and the UK insofar as estimates are made of medical costs, lost output and intangible costs. The use of multipliers based on comparisons between survey and police figures is also common. There are cost estimates for the US (Miller et al. 1996; Anderson 1999), but more direct use is made of a UK study by Brand and Price (2000) of the costs of crime in England and Wales in 1999 (referred to here as the "UK estimates"). These are used in many instances to provide guideline figures in the absence of Australian data. This is considered reasonable given the similarity of the crime profile in the two countries (see technical report).

When applying estimates of costs in the UK to Australia, account is taken of differences in price levels. Costs are given in 2001-02 Australian dollars wherever possible.

Medical costs

Medical costs for victims are based on a study by the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) of the costs of deaths and injuries in Victoria, one category of which was interpersonal violence (Watson & Ozanne-Smith 1997). The costs relate to those treated in and outside hospital. They are applied here to homicides and other crimes for which there is data on whether injury occurred. No mental health costs are assessed, although US estimates find a sizeable 10 to 20 per cent of mental health costs may be attributable to crime (Miller et al. 1996).

Lost output

Lost output estimates have been made for most of the crimes considered, another largely new element. For violent crimes, MUARC's figures are again adapted. They cover the loss of paid and unpaid work that victims cannot do. For property crime, survey-based estimates of lost output are mainly used.

Intangible costs

Intangible costs set a monetary value on pain, suffering and lost quality of life. Intangible costs are subject to great uncertainty, and vary considerably under competing costing methodologies. Estimates are made for both violent and property crime, since it would be unbalanced not to do so (few burglary victims, for instance, escape emotional effects). For violent crime, a guide is taken from the intangible costs of road accidents produced by the Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE 2000). BTE took a conservative approach to costing intangible losses. For property crime, UK estimates are mainly drawn on as with lost output.

Transfer of resources

Theft and fraud involve the transfer of resources from victim to offender. This raises the issue of whether the transfer is a loss to society (the thief ends up with a DVD player after all). The important distinction between transfer and loss turns on whether the transfer is wanted or unwanted. Since theft involves an unwanted (on the victim's part) transfer of property, it is treated here as a cost of crime.

Insurance claims also involve a transfer of resources but, unlike the transfer from victim to offender, it can be seen as wanted. Potential victims pay insurance premiums so their losses can be reclaimed in the event of crime. Actual victims with insurance receive recompense. Thus, insurance can be treated as a transfer of resources, not a loss to society. Some assessment is made, though, of the costs to insurers of administering insurance claims.

The crime coverage

The offences covered fall into three groups as regards the way they are costed:

The most careful costings are for homicide, assault, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, theft of vehicles and shoplifting.

A lighter touch is taken for theft from vehicles, criminal damage, and other theft and handling stolen goods. Since Australian estimates of unrecorded crime are unavailable, the costings draw mainly on UK work as regards the estimated "dark figure" and the extent of losses.

For drug offences, fraud and arson, some indicative overall costs are given. No attempt is made to estimate the "real" number of offences involved since there is little guide to this. Nor is there a breakdown of the different types of cost per individual offence.

Omissions

Some crimes have not been included because of lack of data on the number of incidents and their cost. These include kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, abduction, defamation, pollution, flora/fauna/other environmental offences, good order offences, regulatory offences, and illegal immigration. Traffic offences (illegal speeding and drinking "over the limit") are also not included, although costs will be considerable.

Homicide

In ABS terms, homicide includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and driving causing death. Excluding attempted murder (more appropriately treated as assault), there were 589 victims of homicide in Australia in 2001. This is assumed to be the "real" number - that is, there is no multiplier. MUARC's figures for fatal cases of interpersonal violence were taken as the guide for medical costs and lost productivity. Intangibles costs draw on BTE's fatal road accident costs.

The medical costs of homicide are $7,600 per incident. The cost for lost output is substantial, at about $1.2 million per homicide, while the intangible cost is nearly $400,000. The overall cost of homicide at the 2001 level is $4.5 million (medical), $700 million (lost output), and about $225 million (intangible costs). This gives a total cost of $930 million, or about $1.6 million per homicide.

Excluded are costs associated with the investigation, prosecution, trial and imprisonment of homicide offenders, which are included in criminal justice system costs. Also excluded are any costs of supporting surviving dependants of victims and offenders, and any intangible costs for family and friends of homicide victims.

Assaults

The number of assaults in 2001 is estimated to have been 810,000. A distinction is made between non-injury and injury assaults (about one-fifth according to the CSS), and higher costs are allocated to attempted homicides. Not all assaults with injury require medical treatment and allowance is made for this, extrapolating from UK results.

The medical cost of an average assault with injury is $1,000, with the total amounting to $170 million. Lost output costs are higher at about $3,400 for an injury assault, and nearly $600 million overall. The average intangible cost is similar to lost output, and amounts to about $670 million. The total cost of assault in 2001-02 prices is estimated at just over $1.4 billion, or $1,800 per assault.

There is not enough information to differentiate child abuse, though it would be valuable to do so. Costs per incident could be higher than for other assaults, even discounting the possibility of "second generation" crimes by those abused as children, or possible lower educational and occupational achievement. It would also be useful to be able to say whether average costs for domestic violence are higher. There is every indication they are.

Sexual assault

The number of sexual assaults in 2001 is estimated to have been 93,000. About a quarter involved injury according to the CSS, though not all needed medical treatment.

Essentially similar costing procedures were adopted for sexual assault as for assault. However, to allow for a possible heavier emotional toll, some adjustment was made using an empirical guide from the International Crime Victimisation Survey as to the relative seriousness with which victims judged sexual and non-sexual assaults (van Kesteren et al. 2001). In effect, lost output and intangible costs for sexual assaults were inflated by one-third relative to other assaults.

The average medical cost of a sexual assault with injury is $1,000, with the total medical bill amounting to just over $20 million. Lost output costs are about $4,500 for an injury sexual assault, and about $100 million overall. The intangible cost is estimated at $1,200 averaged across all incidents, and $110 million overall. The total cost of sexual assault is estimated to be $230 million, or $2,500 per incident.

Robbery

Neither the police nor CSS figures give an indication of the value of property stolen in robbery, but use is made of estimates from a number of surveys, and NSW and Victorian police data. Organisational robberies are treated as a different count from the personal robberies encompassed by the CSS, although some allowance has been made for the likelihood of incomplete police figures.

The estimated number of personal robberies in 2001 was nearly 163,000. This results from a large multiplier, but one in line with that from the UK. There were an estimated 5,700 organisational robberies.

The best estimate of the theft element of robbery is about $800 per incident, or $130 million overall. About a quarter of robberies involve some injury to the victim. On UK figures, half require medical attention, rather higher than for assaults. On this basis, the total medical cost of robbery is estimated at nearly $50 million. Lost output adds another $1,000 per incident, or $170 million overall. This is higher than the property loss amount. Intangible losses are higher still, amounting to $1,500 per incident, or just over $250 million overall.

All told, then, the best estimate of the cost of robbery is $600 million overall, with an average robbery cost of $3,600.

Burglary

Although burglary is a key crime of public concern, Australian data for gauging costs is poor. A fair degree of estimation and extrapolation is therefore necessary. A distinction is drawn between residential and non-residential burglaries. There were an estimated 819,000 residential and 176,000 non-residential burglaries in 2001. Estimates of property loss and damage drew on a number of surveys as well as police figures from NSW and Victoria. The best estimate for residential burglaries was an average loss of $1,100, and a higher $2,400 for non-residential incidents. This gives an overall loss of about $1.3 billion, of which $0.9 billion was for residential burglary.

Extrapolating from UK estimates, lost output was assessed at $100 per residential burglary and at $1,200 for non-residential. The total lost output bill was $300 million. Again extrapolating from UK figures, intangible losses were estimated at $800 per incident, or $780 million overall. No medical costs could be assessed.

The cost of burglary amounts to $2,000 per incident for residential burglary, and $4,500 per incident for non-residential burglary. The total burglary bill is $2.43 billion. The burden on businesses is greater than on householders. Non-residential burglaries account for 18 per cent of all burglaries, but 32 per cent of the costs.

Total for burglary:

$2,430 million (overall)

$2,400 per burglary

$2,000 per residential burglary

$4,500 per non-residential burglary

Theft of vehicles

The police recorded 140,000 vehicles stolen in 2001 (just under one per 100 vehicles registered). This is close to the "real" number of thefts since most victims will report to the police to get help in recovering their vehicle, or to facilitate an insurance claim.

The best estimates of property loss and damage are insurers' figures to the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council (2002). They are based on the cost of finalised claims, less revenue from recovered vehicles. (About four in five stolen vehicles are recovered - albeit some damaged or with items stolen.) Not all thefts are covered by insurance, and not all involve losses high enough to warrant a claim. The best estimate is that 45 per cent of thefts result in a claim. When a claim is not made, an arbitrary value of $500 property loss has been set. When a claim is made, the average property loss is $8,300 per theft.

The estimated cost of property loss amounts to $590 million overall, or $4,000 per theft, averaged across claim and no-claim thefts. Australian survey data is taken as a guide to lost output, and UK figures are adapted for intangible costs. The total cost due to lost output is over $100 million about ($700 per incident). The intangible cost is nearly $190 million ($1,300 per incident). All told, then, the best estimate of the cost of motor vehicle theft is $6,000 per incident, or $880 million overall.

Theft from vehicles

Thefts from vehicles are in a broad category of thefts in ABS figures but some estimation of costs can be made, albeit relying to a rather greater degree on UK estimates.

Police figures in five states on the number of recent thefts are extrapolated to give an Australian total of 266,000 recorded thefts. Applying an appropriate multiplier gives an estimated "real" total of 956,000. Survey estimates indicate that average property loss is about $600 for thefts from commercial vehicles, and $250 for others. The best estimate of lost output is $180 per commercial vehicle incident, and $15 for others. Intangible costs, on the basis of UK figures, are $260 per incident on average.

The total cost of thefts from vehicles, therefore, amounts to $530 million, made up of $260 million in property loss, about $20 million in lost output, and $250 million in intangible costs.

Shop theft

Thefts from businesses are perpetrated mostly by customers and employees. Police figures in four states on the number of recent shop thefts are extrapolated to give an Australian total of 73,000. To this is applied a fairly well aired multiplier which proposes that one in 100 thefts ends up recorded by the police (cf. Farrington 1999). This gives an estimated total of 7.3 million thefts (just over 40 per retailer). Survey estimates indicate the average unit loss is in the region of $100 (this boosted by higher losses from employee theft). The best estimate of lost output is $10 per incident.

The total cost of shop theft, then, amounts to $810 million, with an average loss per theft of $110. For retailers, this would amount to an average loss of $4,800 a year.

The Retail Traders' Association (RTA) rule of thumb is that 1.5 per cent of retail turnover goes on "leakage and shrinkage", giving a current total loss figure of $2 billion. This is not comparable with the current estimate, however, since the RTA losses also cover delivery thefts, damage to goods, burglary, refund frauds and so on.

Other theft and handling

There is a miscellany of other thefts not elsewhere counted, including theft of personal items in office and leisure settings, thefts from gardens, and thefts from farms. Estimates of loss are rather tenuous here, but worth including for completeness.

Using a UK multiplier, there was an estimated 1.769 million other thefts not covered in earlier categories. UK estimates suggest an average property loss of $200 per incident, lost output of $10, and an intangible cost of $150. The total cost, then, amounts to $640 million, of which about $350 million is property loss, and $270 million intangible losses.

Criminal damage

Criminal damage - usually called vandalism - is difficult to cost as incidents range widely in seriousness, even excluding arson which is dealt with separately next.

Again using a UK multiplier, there was an estimated 1.9 million incidents of criminal damage in 2001. Using a variety of survey sources, the average unit cost for property loss was $350. The best estimate of lost output is $50 per incident, while intangible losses run at $300 per incident.

The total cost of criminal damage amounts to $1.34 billion, of which 50 per cent is property loss, and about 40 per cent intangible losses.

Arson

It is hard to know how many incidents of arson occur. Criminal intent is difficult to prove for many fires, and this will impinge on both police and insurance figures. Most previous estimates of the cost of arson have focused on property loss, although indirect losses and intangible losses could be considerable.

The cost estimate was based on the average of the following:

the number of arsons recorded by the police multiplied by the average arson cost according to Victoria police;

an estimated number of unrecorded incidents (assumed to be twice as many as recorded) multiplied by an average cost set at one-fifth of recorded incidents;

the annual cost of deliberate fires attended in Victoria and Western Australia, grossed to a national figure;

Insurance Council of Australia estimates of insurance payouts for arson in Victoria and New South Wales; and

insurance payouts for fire damage in 2001-02, assuming a third are due to arson or probable arson.

There are a number of points to note:

Insured losses are taken as comprising 35 per cent of total losses, using figures from Emergency Management Australia. Thus, medical, lost output and intangible losses are taken into account, but not as separate elements.

Estimates based on insured fires adjust for the fact that a quarter of targets are uninsured.

An adjustment is made to avoid over-counting vehicle fires. They are a sizeable proportion of arson incidents, but some occur after a vehicle is stolen, so costs will be subsumed under motor vehicle theft.

The best estimate of the cost of arson in 2001-02 is $730 million in terms of direct, indirect and intangible costs. Added to this is about $330 million for fire services (using a quarter of Productivity Commission figures for fire service costs), and a further $50 million for ambulance services (five per cent of total budget). The value of volunteer time was estimated at $240 million on the basis of data from the Australasian Fire Authorities Council. The sum of these is $1.35 billion.

Fraud

The cost of fraud is particularly tenuous. There are many types, including credit card fraud, employee fraud, forgery, welfare benefit frauds, identity fraud, Custom and Excise fraud, tax fraud, insurance fraud, and computer and telecommunications fraud. Lack of good enough data precludes building up the overall cost of fraud from estimates of the sub-components.

Starting with police figures was the other option, although this entailed estimating what proportion of fraud goes unrecorded, and how unrecorded and recorded frauds might differ in value.

The approach taken was as follows.

1. The number of fraud offences recorded by the police in 2001 (about 110,000) was multiplied by the average value of fraud in NSW and Victoria ($9,900 per fraud). This gave a loss of $1.09 billion.

2. It was estimated that there were three undetected frauds for every one recorded. The average value of these was set at just under $1,600 on the basis of five surveys that covered fraud. An allowance was made for a small number of very high value cases. The total cost here amounted to $600 million.

3. Added to (a) and (b) was the value of frauds against the Commonwealth that are investigated by the Australian Federal Police, together with an estimate for undetected frauds against the Commonwealth. This gave a total of $1.83 billion.

4. (a) to (c) were adjusted to take rough account of other costs. The guide to these was the proportion of lost output and intangible losses of all losses for property crime (40 per cent). This was used to inflate the fraud figure. Thus, the sum total from the elements above ($3.5 billion) increased to $5.88 billion as the overall fraud bill.

Total for fraud:

$5,880 million

The previous AIC estimate of fraud (Walker 1997) was based principally on estimates by AFP research staff, although little detail is known. Were this to be updated, and allowing for inflation, this would give a current figure of just under $3.7 billion. However our estimate of $5.88 billion is more realistic.

Drug offences

Drug offences carry considerable law enforcement costs, which are subsumed in criminal justice system costs, discussed below. There is also substantial financial fallout from offences committed to fund a drug habit. These are included within relevant offence categories (burglary and shoplifting, for instance), though this is returned to below. In addition, there are other "human costs" of drug abuse that fall principally to health and treatment services. Lost productivity due to premature death and illness is a further cost.

A number of estimates were made to account for some of the human costs involved.

Deaths due to drug dependence were estimated to cost about $510 million in 2001. Costs fell principally to lost productivity (assessed, for simplicity, as for homicide victims).

Hospitalisations and emergency department visits due to drug dependence might cost in the region of $26 million.

For the costs of other drug treatment, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data for 2000-01 on people registered for treatment (AIHW 2002) were linked to the 2001 survey of Clients of Treatment Service Agencies (Shand & Mattick 2002) to distinguish between residential and non-residential treatment. Costs for each were taken from Productivity Commission figures for mental health care (SCRCSSP 2003). This gave an estimated bill of about $370 million.

Methadone maintenance treatment at 2000-01 levels cost nearly $100 million.

Lost productivity may amount to nearly $960 million. While this might overestimate losses if drug users have less productive lives, this is balanced by the omission of any lost productivity by drug users not in treatment.

Total for drug offences:

$1,960 million

It is not possible to assess unit costs given that the number of offences is illusive. Nor are all costs counted. No intangible costs are estimated, for one because drug abuse might be considered a "willing choice". Mental health costs are excluded, even though long-term use of drugs may exacerbate or cause mental disorder. Nor is any account taken of other services for drug users such as accommodation, needle and syringe exchange programs, treatment services in correctional institutions, and private treatment agencies not publicly funded. Also discounted is the raft of central and local government initiatives set up to deal with drug abuse (for example, drug awareness programs).

Overall crime costs

It has not been possible to assess the different elements of costs for different offences in quite the same way. For instance, medical costs were not assessed for some offences, and the fire service cost of dealing with fires was included for arson, whereas reactive costs for other offences were not apportioned to particular offences.

This said, fraud carries the largest bill - at nearly a third of the total ( Figure 1). Violent crime (homicide, assault and sexual assault) and burglary are the next most costly.

Figure 1 : Different crimes as a proportion of total costs [see attached PDF for pie chart]

Misuse of illicit drugs here covers only the costs of death, treatment costs and lost productivity. The cost of violent and property crime committed to fund a drug habit also lays claim to be counted. A guide to this comes from the AIC's Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) project (Makkai & McGregor 2002). This suggests that $3.7 billion of the cost of property and violent crime stems from drug-attributable crimes. When added to the $1.9 billion cost of drug misuse counted in Figure 1, this gives a total of $5.6 billion - or 29 per cent of the $19 billion cost of crime that has been accounted for so far. Some proportion of other costs that are considered below - policing for instance - can of course also be set against drug misuse, although no attempt is made to do this.

Crime volume and crime costs

Except for arson, fraud and drug misuse, a "real" number of offences can be estimated for other offences (the "main set"). For these, offences can be compared in terms of (a) their volume, and (b) the costs they carry. Figure 2 shows the striking difference. One clear message is that violent crime is a great deal more important in cost terms than would be indicated by the number of offences. The cost of violence amounts to just over a quarter of the total, whereas the number of crimes is six per cent. Burglary is also more costly than its numbers would suggest.

Figure 2 : Volume and costs of crime (excluding arson, fraud and drugs) [see attached PDF for bar chart]

Intangible losses

Intangible losses are a very large component for many crimes, as other work has found (cf. Cohen 2000). For the main set of offences, they comprised one-third of total losses, even with the fairly conservative approach to costing taken. In terms of overall intangible costs, assault and residential burglary are most costly. Criminal damage also carries high intangible losses, mainly a function of the volume of offences.

Property loss

Residential burglary was the most costly of the "main set" of crimes in terms of simple property loss, with a total overall cost of $0.9 billion. Shoplifting was the next most costly ($0.7 billion) which reflects the high volume of offences.

The most costly crime incidents

Not surprisingly, the most costly crime per incident was homicide, with a unit cost of $1.6 million. Among the other crimes (and bearing in mind arson, drug offences and fraud are omitted here), the most costly per incident, on average, was theft of motor vehicles, followed by non-residential burglary ( Figure 3).

Figure 3 : Average cost per incident (excluding homicide, arson, fraud and drugs) [see attached PDF for bar chart]

Other costs

Criminal justice system costs

As well as the costs identified above, there are considerable costs borne by the criminal justice system. The main cost is the police, although they not only engage in crime prevention and law enforcement, but also assist emergency services, direct traffic, and deal with public order problems. To allow for this, the Productivity Commission's police bill for 2001-02 of $4,610 million is reduced by 30 per cent (SCRCSSP 2003). This gives a total of $3,230 million. Other criminal justice system costs have been taken at face value.

The cost of dealing with juvenile offenders is not covered by the Productivity Commission. An estimate is made on the basis of spending on juvenile justice in New South Wales. Table 1 shows the final criminal justice system bill.

Notes:
¹ The basic source of figures is SCRCSSP (2003).
² 70 per cent of total police costs.
³ Excludes juvenile corrective services.
⁴ Includes Attorney-General, Australian Federal Police, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, National Crime Authority, and other agencies.Also included is five per cent of the cost of the Australian Customs Service.
⁵ Includes criminal courts and coronial courts; civil court expenditure is excluded.
⁶ Extrapolated from NSW Department of Juvenile Justice figures.
⁷ Some main exclusions are legal aid, and help for prisoners in and outside prison.

Total for criminal justice system costs:

$6,400 million

Costs of victim assistance

A number of elements of victim assistance were costed. They were criminal injury compensation ($180 million), victim support units within government departments ($14 million), the value of volunteer time ($200 million, estimated at just over one per cent of all volunteer hours in Australia), a proportion of child protection and out-of-home care for children in need (nearly $400 million), the cost of supported accommodation and assistance directed at "women escaping domestic violence" (nearly $70 million), and family violence program support by the Office of the Status of Women ($20 million). The sum of these is an estimated $880 million.

Total for victim assistance costs:

$880 million

Security

There is substantial investment in physical barriers and deterrents to crime: not only security hardware, CCTV, security patrols and such, but also environmental "refitting" by local governments, and people's everyday precautionary behaviour. Not all elements are amenable to costing, but the Australian Security Industry Association gives a figure of turnover for security products and services in Australia amounting to $3.92 billion in 2001-02. With industry advice, 80 per cent has been taken as a rough guide of the products and services associated with the crimes covered here.

Total for security costs:

$3,140 million

Household precautions

Some but not all household expenditure on security equipment will be picked up above. There is also the opportunity cost of people's ordinary precautionary behaviour. Again, this defies accurate quantification, but may be substantial. Anderson (1999) showed that an average US adult spends four minutes a day locking and unlocking doors and looking for keys. Based on the opportunity cost of their time, in Australia this would be worth about $125 per year per adult, or about $1.83 billion annually. This is a "finger in the wind", and will underestimate full opportunity costs. But it lays claim to be included.

Total for household precaution costs:

$1,830 million

Insurance

Insurance Statistics Australia estimates $500 million in Australia in 2001-02, as the administrative cost of providing insurance for theft and damage - about 15 per cent of the value of premiums.

Total for insurance costs:

$500 million

Lost productivity of prisoners

Lost productivity from offenders being incarcerated is not included as a cost of crime here, since it is debatable what the real costs are. First, many offenders - about half according the National Prison Census data (AIC analysis) - are unemployed on arrest and may well be so after release. Second, the majority of prisoners work whilst in prison so that the value of this productivity needs to be set against lost productivity outside prison. Thirdly, the cost of "crimes saved" by incarceration needs to be accounted for. Estimates indicate that these three elements more or less cancel each other out (see technical report).

Central and local government expenditure on crime prevention

Not costed here is the array of jurisdictional and local government crime prevention and community safety programs. The annual cost of these has never been pulled together, but will be significant. There are also social amenities - street lighting for instance - with high costs, a proportion of which could be legitimately put on the crime bill.

Total for crime prevention costs:

not available

Full costs in summary

Table 4 shows the costs in full. The cost of dealing with crime is nearly $13 billion, 40 per cent of the total. Of this, the criminal justice system accounts for half, and private security for a quarter. As stated, the figure for household precautionary behaviour is speculative. The cost of the crimes totals $19 billion, while the total bill amounts to nearly $32 billion. This is $1,600 per person per year in Australia, and five per cent of GDP.

Notes:
¹ Source for recorded crime statistics (ABS 2002).
² CSS = Crime and Safety Australia (ABS 1999). UK estimates based on Brand & Price (2000).
³ Estimate made for non-personal robberies.
⁴ Based on shop theft figures for NSW, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. Weighted up to Australia on the basis of these states' share of "total theft".

Notes:
¹ The estimated number of actual incidents for each crime is shown in Table 2.
² n.e. = not estimated
³ n.e.i. = not elsewhere included.
⁴ Figures may not sum to total due to rounding.

Note: Figures may not sum to total due to rounding.

Conclusions

The estimates here break new ground. They give figures for the cost of different crimes generally in excess of those from the last AIC estimate, although this is because of more complete accounting of the costs involved.

The costs should be treated judiciously.

A problematic element is the number of crimes to be costed; that is, what "multipliers" are taken to account for the "dark figure" of offences. Generous multipliers were used.

Some of the costings are based on data from the UK, applied to Australia. The soundness of this depends on the profile of crime in the two countries being similar. A good case for this can be made, but some caution remains.

Assumptions have been made throughout. Some may sail close to the wind. Cost estimates will be sensitive to the assumptions made, and they may change as the quality of supporting data improves.

The main implications for future work are that we need:

To examine the multiplier issue more carefully. This requires work on the accuracy of survey counts, like whether all "crimes" that victims tell interviewers about merit the label, and how well victims can pinpoint in time what happened to them. We also need more work on police decision processes after victims report what they think to be crime.

Better Australian information on the costs of victimisation in terms of property loss and time off work. Australian survey information is under-developed on this front.

More Australian information on the intangible costs of crime, and which costing methodology produces the most sensible estimates. Better estimates are especially needed for property crime.

Better cost estimates for newer forms of crime such as people smuggling and illegal immigration.

References

Anderson, D.A. 1999, "The aggregate burden of crime", Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 611-42.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2002, Recorded Crime Australia, cat. no. 4510.0 (and companion tables), ABS, Canberra.

--- 1999, Crime and Safety Australia, cat. no. 4509.0, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2002, Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services in Australia 2000-01: First Report on the National Minimum Data Set, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra.

Brand, S. & Price, R. 2000, The Economic and Social Costs of Crime, Home Office Research Study No. 217. Home Office, London.

Bureau of Transport Economics 2000, Road Crash Costs in Australia, report 102, Bureau of Transport Economics, Canberra.

Cohen, M. 2000, "Measuring the costs and benefits of crime and justice", in Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 4, Office of Justice Programs, US Dept of Justice, Washington DC, pp. 263-315.

Collins, D.J. & Lapsley, H.M. 2002, Counting the Cost: Estimate of the Social Costs of Drug Abuse in Australia in 1998-99, Monograph Series No. 49, Cwlth Dept of Health and Ageing, Canberra.

Farrington, D.P. 1999, "Measuring, explaining and preventing shoplifting", Security Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9-27.

Makkai, T. & McGregor, K. 2002, "Drugs and crime: Calculating attributable fractions from the DUMA project", Appendix D in D.J. Collins & H.M. Lapsley, Counting the Cost: Estimate of the Social Costs of Drug Abuse in Australia in 1998-99, Monograph Series No. 49, Commonwealth Dept of Health and Ageing, Canberra.

Mayhew, P. 2003, Counting the Costs of Crime in Australia: Technical Report, Technical and Background Paper Series, no. 4, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

Miller, T.R., Cohen, M. & Wiersema, B. 1996, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look, National Institute of Justice Research Report, US Department of Justice, Washington DC.

National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council 2002, Comprehensive Auto-theft Research System (CARS) 2001-02, National CARS Project, Adelaide.

Shand, F. & Mattick, R. 2002, Census of Treatment Service Agencies (COTSA) 2001, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision (SCRCSSP) 2003, Report on Government Services 2002, Productivity Commission, Melbourne.

Van Kesteren, J., Mayhew, P. & Nieuwbeerta, P. 2001, Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries: Key Findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey, Ministry of Justice, the Hague.

Walker, J. 1997, "Estimates of the costs of crime in Australia in 1996", Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 72, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

Walker, J. 1992, "Estimates of the costs of crime in Australia", Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 39, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

Watson, W.L. & Ozanne-Smith, J. 1997, The Cost of Injury to Victoria, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Report No. 124, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne.

Notes

¹ Estimates of lost productivity need to use a so-called "social discount rate". The rate MUARC used was changed to be more in line with current practice.

² More precisely, the ratio of intangible costs to lost output costs for road accidents is applied to MUARC's figures for lost output to give an estimate of intangible costs for homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery. BTE's intangible costs for road accidents are based on jury awards that are essentially funded by compulsory third-party insurance for motorists. Little use could be made of information from criminal injury compensation awards in Australia (or elsewhere) since these are severely capped by funding limits.

³ This is based on an estimated figure of 75 per cent of owners covered by theft, and 60 per cent of insured victims making a claim.

At the time of writing, Pat Mayhew was Consultant Criminologist at the Australian Institute of Criminology. Dr Glenda Adkins lectures at the University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Counting the costs of crime in Australia Cost of crime in Australia statistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Foreword | This paper presents up to date figures on the costs of a range of offences and crime as a whole in Australia. The costs assessed include medical costs, lost output, and intangible costs, which set a monetary value on pain, suffering and lost quality of life.

# data[].attributes.body
Justify the existence of the Victorian Court hierarchy. 4 marks.

Distinguish between original and appellate jurisdiction. 2 marks..

Identify the grounds on which a person convicted of a crime in the County Court can appeal to a higher court. 3 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Outline two reasons why bail might be refused. 2 marks.

Identify the court that would conduct a committal proceeding and explain the aim of a committal proceeding. 3 marks

Describe the process of remand. 2 marks.

Examine the purpose of bail. 2 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Describe the nature of the adversary system of trial. 5 marks.

A group of school students were waiting at a tram stop. One student was celebrating the end of his VCE exams with his friends. A verbal altercation took place between the Year 12 student and a 14-year-old boy. The younger boy insulted one of the girls in the group by using offensive name calling. The Year 12 student responded by calling the boy ‘unibrow’. The boy speared the Year 12 student with the metal tip of his umbrella. Four days later the Year 12 student died as a result of the attack. The boy who was 16 by the time of his trial, pleaded not guilty to murder. He was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

With reference to this case, explain how two aspects of our adversarial system of trial would have been crucial in this case. 4 marks.

Evaluate the adversary system of trial. 10 marks

# data[].attributes.body
Distinguish between the role of a barrister and the role of a solicitor. 2 marks.

A retrial has been granted to a woman who served three months in jail for stabbing her former lover.  Walker attacked the women and her girlfriend from behind with a knife stabbing both of them and then fleeing.  Walker denied the knife attack, but a County Court jury in Geelong did not believe her and she was sentenced to jail and an 18-month community corrections order.  In ordering a retrial and setting aside her convictions, three Court of Appeal judges ruled County  Court Judge Susan Cohen should have discharged the jury after one of the prosecution witnesses, a former boyfriend; revealed Walker had served time in jail.  The Court of Appeal found the information offered by the witness could have implied Walker had been incarcerated for a nominal duration and had blackened her character.

Describe the role of the judge and jury in the case. 4 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Outline the role of the criminal jury. 3 marks

Describe the composition of the criminal jury hearing an indictable offence. 2 marks.

Explain when a case will heard by a criminal jury. 2 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Explain what is meant by the term ‘aggravating’ factor. 2 marks.

Explain how a mitigating factor impacts the culpability of an offender. 2 marks.

Distinguish between an aggravating factor and a mitigating factor. 4 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
Describe the term ‘criminal record’. 2 marks.

Analyse one impact of having a criminal record. 2 marks.

Explain how a criminal record can impact an individual’s ability to travel. 2 marks.

# data[].attributes.body
On Google Classroom you will each be assigned a case study.
Using the knowledge from this subject, create a script that argues the points of why the accused is guilty and what defences you could use.

The script should use all legal personnel including:

Judge

Crown Prosecutor

Judges Associate

Tipstaff

Defence Barrister

Solicitors

Witnesses

Jury

Accused

# data[].attributes.body
Watch this video on jurors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We the Jury - a short film about jury service in Victoria

# data[].attributes.body
You have been asked (being the legal expert that you are) to give a short presentation to a group of Year 8 and 9 students who have been getting themselves into a bit of trouble lately.  The year level coordinators are concerned that their behaviours are escalating and that there is a risk that these students cross the line into becoming involved in illegal activities.  They have asked you to give them a 3 minute presentation on how having a criminal record may impact their lives further down the track.

REMOTE LEARNING ALTERNATIVE:
This will need to be completed using visual aids such as a keynote presentation/powerpoint and you will record yourself giving the presentation to students.

Use statistics/evidence to prove your point.