Tracing stolen property using tracking apps comes with complexities when the police get involved, says Whimsy columnist CLIVE WILLIAMS.

“My friend Larry’s in jail for doing something he didn’t do. He didn’t run fast enough.” –Damon Wayans

In early June 2025, a couple in London – Mia Forbes Pirie and Mark Simpson – had their Jaguar stolen from outside their home.

Thanks to a hidden Apple AirTag, they quickly tracked it to a location in Chiswick. They alerted the Metropolitan Police, who reportedly responded with vague assurances but no action – even with a precise location provided. 

Fearing the AirTag might be removed, the couple went to the location themselves. They found the car and “stole it back”. After recovery, the police took up the investigation but since the Jaguar was parked on a public street, the owners are unlikely to be charged – which they could have been if they had entered private property to steal it back.

I’m aware that former SAS personnel are available for hire to recover tracked stolen property in the UK. Presumably police are turning a blind eye to SAS recovery cases. (A friend of my nephew had his stolen car recovered in London by former SAS personnel who were apparently disappointed that the thieves did not offer any resistance.)

There doesn’t seem to be a reported case in Canberra quite like the London AirTag Jaguar one, but there have been notable Canberra incidents involving tracking devices and stolen property.

In December 2023, ACT Policing executed a warrant in Ngunnawal after a stolen e-bike with an Apple AirTag was tracked by its owner. The warrant led to the recovery of six e-bikes and 15 scooters – worth about $30,000 – and additional stolen property.

That case involved police action based on tracking data, though not owners taking matters into their own hands – it was an official law-enforcement recovery using proper legal channels.

In April this year, a Canberra man – referred to as “Mr S” – used Apple’s Find My iPad after discovering it stolen. He tracked it to a private home, looked through the window, and pinged the device so it played a sound inside.

This led to police recovering the iPad (along with other stolen property). The suspect was arrested. Later, the suspect’s lawyer challenged the admissibility of the evidence, calling it an “electronic trespass” because accessing the sound via a ping could be considered entering the suspect’s premises unlawfully!

While it didn’t involve a break‑in by the owner, it does highlight legal complexities around using tracking apps.

In July 2025, an AirTag attached to an e-bike led police to uncover a stash of stolen bikes and scooters in Civic. Police say a man tracked his stolen bike to a serviced apartment in the CBD. ACT police then secured a warrant and searched the property. They found 15 bikes and e-bikes and five e-scooters, along with tools and other bike parts. Police estimate the value of the stolen goods to be around $50,000.

What these cases show is that electronic tracking is now a viable way for victims to track down some types of stolen property. In the ACT at least, police seem prepared to act on tracking information so there should be no need for Canberrans to steal back stolen items.

On a lighter note: A woman goes to a health centre where she is seen by one of the younger doctors. After about four minutes in the examination room, she bursts out screaming and runs down the hall.

An older doctor stops her and asks what the problem is, and she tells him her story. After listening, he has her sit down and relax in another room.

The older doctor marches down the hallway back to where the young doctor is writing on his clipboard. “What’s the matter with you?” the older doctor demands. “Mrs Terry is 61 years old, has four grown children and seven grandchildren and you tell her she is pregnant?”

The younger doctor continues writing without looking up and says: “But does she still have the hiccups?”

Clive Williams is a Canberra columnist.