"Dine and Dash"

In this blog post, I would like to discuss the issue and concept of "Dining and Dashing," and the legal ramifications that may arise from committing this act. It is my understanding that the term refers to the indecent act of eating out at an establishment ("Dining") and leaving without paying ("Dashing"). The term does not only just refer to specifically eating out at a restaurant it actually entails a range of other offences such as filling up your car with petrol and then leaving without paying.

Therefore, to sum up the term, it involves obtaining a service and leaving without paying. Obviously this is an ethical issue but there are also legal consequences to committing this crime. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually a criminal offence in Australia. For example, looking at the Tasmanian statute; Police Offences Act 1935 section 38A ("Making off without payment") clearly states that a person is guilty of a fine (of up to $1540) or even imprisonment of up to 12 months if you are found to have known that payment on the spot for goods supplied or services completed and then dishonestly make off without paying that agreed fee. However, I think that it must also be noted that if the supply of those goods was illegal, then this section is not legally enforceable.

I believe that the general crux of this legal issue is that someone is clearly taking advantage of a system of trust; that the restaurant for example, expects you to pay for what you eat. It is also interesting to note that many restaurants actually budget for walk-outs, and that they almost expect that this is a regular occurrence. I think that this shouldn't be the case; and that restaurants shouldn't have to worry about such a petty problem. Although some may think that this isn't an issue that needs fixing, I believe that there needs to be more policies and facilities in place to eradicate this behaviour. Those who offend are at an extremely high risk of doing again, as essentially this is theft, and it needs to be treated in the same regard. Offenders will keep committing this crime if they are not caught, so something needs to change!


Reference for Text:
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/poa1935140/s38a.html

Reference for Images:
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/poa1935140/s38a.html
http://dinendash.ca/img/logo.png

Relationship between Consent and Sexual Assault

I believe, through my research, that the meaning of consent is a diverse, complex term; yet quite easy to decipher. It essentially refers to when someone voluntarily and freely agrees to a sexual act. Within this, it is apparent that consent is negated if the person is unconscious, asleep, intoxicated or threatened by force, etc.

It is through my understanding that in all sexual assault cases,  the prosecution must prove that the complainant did not consent to the sexual act. Thus, revealing the seriousness and extent the role of consent plays in all sexual assault cases, such that there is a specific section under statute law, directly relating to consent in sexual assault cases, in the Crimes Act under section 61HA.

A clear example of this in practice involves Billy Tamawiwy (pictured on the right), a university student in ACT. It is believed that he set up a fake Facebook account pretending to be a women, to lure men for sex as an act of revenge. It is alleged he targeted and deceived up to 7 men with the fake account. The most serious charge involves luring a man to have sexual intercourse with him, through the fake account, under the expectation, that the man thought that it would lead to the promise of sex with the “fake” woman. 

Do you think this constitutes consent?  My understanding is that the man did agree voluntarily to have sexual intercourse with Tamawiwy (only under the expectation that he would be given the woman of the “fake” profile). However, the key element of this case is that the man was deceived by Tamawiwy. Therefore, I think that because of this deception; it is clear that this now negates consent, and thus, constitutes sexual assault (“rape”), as this is a clear abuse of trust and authority, clearly defined under section 61HA of the Crimes Act of NSW.


I believe that mandatory sentencing should be introduced for crimes that involve sexual assault without consent, as this is a very important issue. This is because the victims of the situation are scarred for life. There is no forgetting these horrible acts, and heavy deterrence within the law is needed to fully eradicate and remove this behaviour from society.

Consent is a very very important concept that needs to be respected and followed. Above is a very important video that explains the notion and relationship between consent and sexual assault very well. 

Reference for Text:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-23/man-pretended-to-be-a-woman-on-facebook-as-revenge-court-hears/6799764

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61ha.html

Reference for Image:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5730942-3x4-340x453.jpg

Reference for Youtube Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XiMtPFJigc