Theft & Shoplifting

Theft & Shoplifting


Shoplifting is both a common and minor criminal offense that is committed by Canadians of all ages and backgrounds. Unfortunately, being found guilty of a minor property related offence such as shoplifting can have a profound impact on a person’s future employment opportunities and travel plans.

Daniel Murphy has experience in both defending and prosecuting individuals that have been charged with offences ranging from simple shoplifting to theft over $5,000 and complex fraud cases including cheque and credit card fraud.



What charge is laid in a Theft allegation depends on the value of the item(s) stolen. If the value exceeds $5,000.00 then the charge is Theft Over $5,000.00, otherwise the charge is Theft Under $5,000.00.

As values of items are often different to different people it is important to review the allegations and to ascertain the correct value as there is a distinct advantage to keep the charge as a Theft Under $5,000.00.

Additional considerations with these charges include whether the allegations make out a breach of trust situation, such as a theft from an employer or family member.

Breach of trust situations typically command a greater sentence than a simple theft without a trust relationship being present.



There are many different types of theft. The most common type is shoplifting, or theft from a retail store as opposed to theft from a private citizen. Shoplifting is a special kind of theft that is often impulsive but can sometimes be compulsive.

Even in instances of minor charges such as theft and shoplifting, having access to experienced counsel is important and can potentially result in a withdrawal of the criminal charges. With proper representation, you may save the expense or embarrassment of a trial or face the risk of a possible criminal conviction.


Possession of Stolen Property

This charge involves an allegation that an individual had control and possession of an item or items either with the knowledge that they were stolen or while being willfully blind that they were stolen. Crown counsel will often point to deals that were too good to be legitimate as enough to infer that knowledge should have been present.