A Huntsville woman appeared in Bracebridge court recently to answer for a string of theft-related offences.
Sasha Gillard-Strickland, 28, pled guilty to stealing from the LCBO, Walmart, Fresh Mart and Shoppers Drug Mart, as well as committing multiple breaches of court orders.
Court heard that on Aug. 29, 2022, Gillard-Strickland entered the Fresh Mart in Huntsville at roughly 3:40 pm and proceeded to steal some $1,622.00 worth of merchandise. She was identified via security camera footage.
On Jan. 2, 2023, Gillard-Strickland went into the Huntsville LCBO and stole four bottles of Grey Goose vodka valued at $463. Staff recognized her from previous thefts in the store.
On Jan. 10, 2023, Gillard-Strickland stole a sound bar valued at $158 from the Walmart in Huntsville, and on Feb. 20, 2023, she stole roughly $860 worth of perfume and cosmetics from Shoppers Drug Mart, court heard.
The Justice in the case indicated he saw little hope of Gillard-Strickland paying back the nearly $3,000 in restitution owed to the stores. As such he made a “free-standing” order for repayment.
Gillard-Strickland, who has a previous criminal record, was given credit for 46 days served in pre-trial custody and given a suspended sentence and 18 months probation.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Em Arde says
With no real consequences for those who commit retail (or other) property theft, it will simply continue to happen, threatening all of us.
George Young says
So where is the deterrent in a sentence like this to someone already convicted of similar activity. Until there is some real punishment don’t expect much to change. And oh yes. What about the law abiding citizens who indirectly have to pay for this action. Legal system is a joke sometimes
Bruce E. Markle says
George. You expressed my feelings for me. Who are these people doling out these ultra severe punishment sentences? The defendant in this case has a prior criminal history and still this incompetent individual feels she deserves to be set free to feed on the unsuspecting public. Is the “justice” her father or lover? This reeks of outright favoritism. This person needs to be relieved of his/her duty, as they obviously have no intention of completing them appropriately any way. If this person thinks he/she is defending the public from criminals he needs to be sent down to the minors for training and an attitude adjustment. If he/she thinks their lack of enforcement is appropriate, then they are guilty of misconduct and no better than the criminals they refuse to administer justice to. It disgusts me.