Anastasia Qvist is an outstanding lawyer. My criminal law situation (family violence order) was difficult, complex and Ana's diligence saved me as I was going through the most difficult period of my life. Ana is down to earth, commonsense and she even kept our costs to a minimum. She is a skilled litigator and knows the ins and outs of the ACT Magistrates Court. She dealt skillfully with the DPP and is an excellent negotiator. You will get a fair representation and she genuinely cares about her clients. She has my complete recommendation. The lady goes to bat for her clients.
I would strongly recommend Anastasia to anyone who is seeking legal representation. As a first-time offender who was charged with a Level 2 Drink Driving offence, she walked me through every step of the matter and was very upfront and clear on all aspects of my case. She was always accessible when I needed advice. Her approach and advice were excellent. Under her representation, I received the best possible outcome and managed to avoid a criminal conviction. She was a pleasure to deal with throughout the whole matter.
Anastasia Qvist was very professional and helpful in every step of my matter. I got a very good outcome and I can’t thank you enough for your hard work and the Armstrong Legal team in Canberra. I would highly recommend her!!!
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
Claim Of Right
The defence of claim of right involves a genuine belief by an accused that they are entitled to property stolen. A claim of right is a complete defence to stealing.
A claim of right involves:
- a genuine honest belief (regardless of whether it is well founded in fact or law)
- regarding a legal entitlement (not just a moral one)
- to property or money in the hands of another.
The leading case is Court of Criminal Appeal case of R v Fuge. In that case, Chief Justice Woods held that:
“The existence of such a claim may constitute an answer to a crime in which the means used to take the property involved an assault, or the use of arms. The relevant issue being whether the accused had a genuine belief in the legal right to the property rather than a belief in a legal right to employ the means in question to recover it.”
A claim of right exists in all state criminal codes and section 9.5 of the Commonwealth code, which sets out that: “a person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element relating to property if at the time of the conduct constituting the offence, the person is under a mistaken belief about a proprietary or possessory right; and the existence of that right would negate a fault element for any physical element of the offence”.
A claim of right can extend to a person who takes money or property on behalf of another, or in collaboration with another, if they believe the other person has a genuine claim of right to the money or property.
It can also extend to cases where what is taken is the equivalent to the specific property or money, but nothing more.
It is the prosecution’s responsibility to negative a claim where it is raised on the evidence.
For advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
The age of criminal liability is the minimum age at which a person can be dealt with by the criminal…
The defence of necessity is difficult to argue successfully. It generally applies in situations where a person committed an act…
The defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact applies only to strict liability offences. Strict liability offences do not…
WHERE TO NEXT?
If you suspect that you may be under investigation, or if you have been charged with an offence, it is vital to get competent legal advice as early as possible. Our lawyers are highly specialised in criminal law and will be able to guide you through the process while dealing with the various authorities related to your matter.
WHY CHOOSE ARMSTRONG LEGAL?
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
111 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000