ARTICLE
6 October 2025

Widescale Juvenile Theft-Spree Ends In Penrith

L
Lamont Law

Contributor

Lamont Law specialise in criminal law. Our experienced team of criminal lawyers regularly appear in Local and District Courts across Sydney, the Hunter Region, the North Coast and the Central Coast. We have office locations in Sydney, Liverpool, Campbelltown, Penrith, Newcastle, Maitland, Central Coast, Byron Bay and Tweed Heads. We represent clients in all types of criminal and traffic matters. Lamont Law will ensure that you receive the strongest representation and we are determined to protect your rights. Our lawyers have a proven track record of excellence. We consistently achieve the best possible outcomes, and regularly receive public and private testimonials from happy clients. We provide flexible conference options in person at our office locations.
This arrest reveals the way in which stolen property often passes through multiple hands.
Australia Criminal Law

In August 2025, a string of jewellery thefts spanning Rhodes and Macquarie Park ultimately culminated in Penrith, drawing attention to the legal intricacies of larceny committed by juveniles and young adults. The incidents involved multiple teenagers entering jewellery stores, requesting to view items, and leaving with gold chains without payment. While the offences were non-violent, they underscore the intersection of property law, juvenile justice, and evidentiary standards under New South Wales law.

The spree reached Penrith on 19 August 2025, when an 18-year-old man was arrested at a local precious metals exchange. He faced multiple charges:

  • Three counts of steal from a retail store
  • Receiving stolen property
  • Two counts of disposing of property
  • Knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime with intent to conceal

The arrest followed the earlier thefts at Macquarie Park on 18 August, where two males had entered a jewellery store, stolen gold chains after viewing samples, and departed without paying. On the same day, two 17-year-old males were arrested at Gladesville Police Station and charged with stealing from a person and knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime with intent to conceal, appearing before a children's court.

This arrest reveals the way in which stolen property often passes through multiple hands, triggering ancillary offences such as receiving or concealing stolen goods, crimes that attract separate and sometimes more severe legal consequences than the initial theft.

Larceny: More Than Just Taking

Under section 117 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), larceny is the unlawful taking and carrying away of property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. Importantly, larceny does not require the use of force, which distinguishes it from robbery.

The conduct of the Penrith suspect, along with the juveniles involved in prior incidents, satisfies the key elements of larceny:

  1. Unlawful taking of property - gold chains
  2. Lack of consent from the owner
  3. Intent to permanently deprive

The additional charges relating to receiving and disposing of stolen property reflect the law's acknowledgment that theft often involves subsequent criminal activity, extending liability beyond the initial act.

Juvenile Offenders and Sentencing Considerations

The involvement of 17-year-olds highlights the application of the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW), which prioritises rehabilitation and diversion over punitive measures. Courts weigh factors including age, maturity, prior record, and the specific circumstances of the offence.

For non-violent larceny, diversionary measures, such as cautions, youth justice programs, or conditional bail, are commonly employed, balancing accountability with the long-term welfare of young offenders. Conditional bail ensures court attendance while minimising custodial exposure for first-time or minor offenders.

Defences to Larceny

Several legal defences may operate to negate criminal liability for larceny:

  1. Claim of Right - This defence applies where a person genuinely believes they have a lawful entitlement to the property in question. If the accused honestly and reasonably believed they had a legal right to possess the property, this can negate the requisite intent for larceny.
  2. Duress - Duress arises where the accused's actions were compelled by threats of serious harm to themselves or others. To succeed, the conduct must be a reasonable response to the threat, and the harm feared must be imminent and significant.
  3. Necessity - Necessity may excuse otherwise criminal conduct when it was required to prevent serious, irreversible harm to oneself or another. The accused's actions must be proportionate to the threat and reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Where a valid defence is properly raised and supported by evidence, the onus shifts to the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution cannot do so, the accused must be acquitted.

Need Legal Assistance?

If you or someone you know is facing a traffic offence, speak with our Penrith Criminal lawyers.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More