Tuvalu Island Courts Bench Book - Federal Court of Australia

Identification
In Court, the prosecution should identify the person charged by
clearly pointing out that person in Court.
The prosecution must provide evidence to prove that it was the
accused who committed the offence.
Tree, etc, did not belong to them
The prosecution must provide evidence of the tree, etc, and prove
the owner of it. See the definition of “owner” in s251(2)(c).
The whole or any part
Any part of the tree, etc, stolen or damaged is enough. It does not
have to be the whole.
Fraudulently and without right of claim in good faith
The accused must have had an intention to defraud or steal or
destroy, and had no good claim to the tree, etc. Consider why did
the accused take or destroy it? Was there an honest intention? If the
accused puts forward an explanation to show he or she honestly
believed in their right to take or destroy the tree, etc, does their
explanation have merit? Is their belief reasonable?
Owner did not consent
The prosecution must prove that the owner did not consent to the
tree, etc, being taken or destroyed. This will be quite easy and is
usually done by evidence from the owner of the tree, etc.
Defences
If the prosecution has proved the elements of the offence, beyond
reasonable doubt, the accused may still have a legal defence.
The accused will have to establish their defence to your satisfaction,
on the balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not).
For a charge of stealing:
Took and carried away
If the charge is stealing, the prosecution must prove that the accused
took the tree, etc, and carried it away. See the definition of “takes”
in s251(2)(a). See the definition of “carries away” in s251(2)(b).
Intention of permanently depriving owner
The prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention of
keeping the tree, etc, and using it as his or her own. If the accused
later sells or gives it away, they have used it as their own.
Tuvalu Island Courts Bench Book June 2004