A police officer denied that a stealing charge against a young woman was payback for her making sexual assault allegations against him, the Launceston Magistrates Court heard.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The woman, who cannot be identified under Section 194K of the Evidence Act, faced the court over the alleged theft of an Icebreaker top worth $269.99 between March 23-25, 2021. She pleaded not guilty.
The court heard that the woman worked casually at a Launceston business in February and March last year.
The period of work at the business overlapped with a short relationship she had with the police officer.
The franchise owner gave evidence that the defendant did not turn up for her shift on a number of occasions.
The franchise owner said that during her period of employment the defendant put aside the merino wool jumper so that she could receive the 30 per cent staff discount.
The store manager gave evidence that it was decided the defendant would be made redundant from the position on March 17, 2021.
She said the jumper had not been paid for and she did not ask the employee about payment when she saw her.
The police officer told the court that he informed the woman via a Facebook message that their relationship was over on March 27.
"She moved out without informing me, I came home to an empty house," he said.
He said that on March 24, she had shown him an Icebreaker jumper saying that it had been a farewell gift from the business and that on March 25 she had left his address.
The officer said that he had worked at the same store for two years in the early 2000s and had a continuing friendly relationship of 17 years with the store manager.
He said that he had been walking on Cameron Street on April 1, 2021, when he met the store manager.
They discussed the ending of his relationship with the defendant.
Under cross-examination from defence counsel Andrew Lonergan, the officer conceded that he discussed the jumper with the store manager.
"Did you speak to [the store manager] about how to handle it?" Mr Lonergan asked.
"Yes," the officer said.
"I said that she could talk to [the defendant] about paying for it or report it to police if they wished to," he said.
The store manager gave evidence that she had seen the defendant on a bushwalk and that she had been called "a bitch".
"You told her you were looking forward to coming to court and dealing with the matter?" Mr Lonergan asked.
"No, I didn't," the store manager said.
Under cross-examination by Mr Lonergan, the officer said that the defendant had made serious sexual allegations against him.
"Did that make you angry?" Mr Lonergan asked.
"Absolutely not," he replied.
"Frustrated?" Mr Lonergan asked.
"I was deeply upset, however, I have forgiven her and I don't understand why they were made but I harbour no malice and I'm not interested in revenge or retribution in any way," the officer said.
"I suggest that you are involved in this matter to get back at [the defendant]?" Mr Lonergan asked.
"I reject that entirely," the officer said.
Under re-examination by police prosecutor Kelly Brown, the officer said he had been cleared of the allegations by Tasmania Police professional standards, the Director of Public Prosecutions and also by the Integrity Commission.
"I have been completely exonerated," he said.
In an interview with police in August 2021, the defendant said the jumper was a parting gift which was a lovely surprise.
She claimed the officer was plotting against her with the store manager because of her allegations.
The defendant did not give evidence in court.
Magistrate Simon Brown said he accepted the evidence of the store manager and the police officer that the conversation about the theft of the jumper predated any sexual allegations.
He said they were both good witnesses.
He said that evidence showed it was a jumper the defendant liked and was her size.
He said he was unimpressed by her version of events in the police interview.
Mr Brown said that when the officer spoke to the store manager he had no awareness of allegations which were subsequently made.
Mr Brown acceded to a submission from Mr Lonergan that the defendant not have a conviction recorded.
"The offence was of pretty limited sophistication," he said.
He said he thought that she had initially intended to buy the jumper but had then thought better of it and simply taken it.
"It was merely opportunistic," he said.
"I accept this was out of character and I suppose everybody is entitled to make one mistake."
Mr Brown proceed without conviction and adjourned proceedings for 12 months on the condition that she give the undertaking to commit no offences of dishonesty.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News: The Examiner
Nick Clark
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for the Examiner for the past 18 months. My journalism career has clicked over 30 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for the Examiner for the past 18 months. My journalism career has clicked over 30 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
