Vincent Jennings

Others, it's completely their game.

There are absolutely no safeguards in place because there is no law relating to it.

There is an annual report provided through the court service.

That is money that the information has been given to them by the various, the 23 courts around the country.

But as to who operates it, how it's operated, what the I mean, is it all to be spent within the locality for local charities?

I mean, there are no rules around that.

None whatsoever.

Absolutely.

What would be wrong with that?

As long as compensation was made and by compensation, I'm talking about if we suffer a drive off or a theft or shoplifting or fraudulent conversion of monies or otherwise.

There is a lot of money expended in ensuring that the prosecution takes place.

There is our time, there is looking through the CCTV imaging, there is making statements, there is perhaps making provision for your staff to go to court and everything like that.

So that's all time and money.

That deserves to be compensated as well because if the person hadn't stolen the property, hadn't driven off, hadn't committed the fraud, we wouldn't be in that situation.

So why should the retailer or any other victim of crime, why should they suffer one bit

Well, it's a matter for the courts to decide whether there will be a conviction or not.

What we're trying to do is increase the level of oversight from zero to something that is there.

And we would like to believe that even if the person says, I don't have the money,

that there can be an attachment of earnings to order to them.

That at some point or other, maybe they will get a job, maybe they do have a job, but at least there is an ongoing situation that the state says, you stole this money from these people, they are entitled to be compensated, either now or into the future.