When is someone going to do something about these thieving parasites?

[foxy lady]

It's not burglary - there is no dwelling involved on an allotment.... There are two offences I described - there is criminal damage the evidence of that being a padlock, there was theft, the evidence being my testimony to the court and his prints on my lawnmower.

 

I'd charge them with theft, and it would stick. Especially since there were witnesses here. They had already appropriated the item and were removing it - a reasonable person would have asked first.

 

Utter tripe. The police wouldn't be the slightest bit interested. Even if they turned out they would advise against making a complaint as it would be more likely to result in a late night visit by vandals than a successful prosecution.

[Obelix]

I agree the case would be made as they leave the threshold of your property with the booty.

 

Not at all. As soon as you appropriate it the offence is complete.

 

This used to cause problems for some stores in detaining suspects. It was the case that you could only arrest someone (if you were not a constable) if you actually caught them in the act. A security guard knew someone had stolen an item, and detained the person as they left the store.

 

End result was that the court held the detention to be false arrest and wrongful imprisonment as they offence of theft had occured previously and the guard was not in pursuit at the time. From that it is clear when teft occurs - the moment you lift the item from the shelf, or the washer from the driveway, not at the point when you leave the property.

[Obelix]

Utter tripe. The police wouldn't be the slightest bit interested. Even if they turned out they would advise against making a complaint as it would be more likely to result in a late night visit by vandals than a successful prosecution.

 

Ok well since you are simply resorting to calling me a liar I don't think there is more to be said. The offence was made and it was successfully prosecuted - I was there after all.

 

If you don't like it - tough luck but that's teh way it goes. If you want to refute the explanation of the law above, please show reasons why.

[foxy lady]

Ok well since you are simply resorting to calling me a liar I don't think there is more to be said. The offence was made and it was successfully prosecuted - I was there after all.

 

If you don't like it - tough luck but that's teh way it goes. If you want to refute the explanation of the law above, please show reasons why.

 

I called no one a liar. I have no argument that you may have prosecuted someone from breaking into your shed. But you are claiming that in the case the OP describes "I'd charge them with theft, and it would stick". Which is utter tripe. But if you want to spit out your dummy that's up to you.

[Obelix]

You my dear spat your dummy out way up the thread. Take the plank out of your own eye first.

[boyfriday]

Not at all. As soon as you appropriate it the offence is complete.

 

This used to cause problems for some stores in detaining suspects. It was the case that you could only arrest someone (if you were not a constable) if you actually caught them in the act. A security guard knew someone had stolen an item, and detained the person as they left the store.

 

End result was that the court held the detention to be false arrest and wrongful imprisonment as they offence of theft had occured previously and the guard was not in pursuit at the time. From that it is clear when teft occurs - the moment you lift the item from the shelf, or the washer from the driveway, not at the point when you leave the property.

 

I dont dispute it, but it's difficult to prove whilst ever the 'stolen' items remain on the property. Concealment might help in the convicting, but obviously it would be difficult to do the with a fridge freezer on the driveway. Hence my playful ps to foxy's post, someone looking at knickers on a washing line would struggle to convince anyone his intent to steal them wasn't there.

 

I can imagine a myriad of defences to the 'scrapman on my property scenario', that might be accepted, including his claiming he was inspecting the property with a view to knocking on your door to make you an offer for it, the prosecution would have to prove his intention to steal it, but there's little defence he could claim when the item has been moved from the property.

[ricgem2002]

Going onto someone's drive: trespass - civil offence. Police will not act.

 

Breaking off a lock to get onto someone's drive: aggravated trespass - criminal offence.

 

Refusing to leave someone's drive when asked: also aggravated trespass - criminal offence.

 

Taking something without permission: theft - criminal offence.

you missed out trespass with the intent to steal -criminal offence

[Berberis]

Why are people getting hung up on the Semantics of theft, its plain to see these people are thieving scumbags and if anything has been done to stop them its been ineffective if people are still having trouble all these months later.

[boyfriday]

Why are people getting hung up on the Semantics of theft, its plain to see these people are thieving scumbags and if anything has been done to stop them its been ineffective if people are still having trouble all these months later.

 

..you have to get hung up on the detail in order to prove an offence is committed, otherwise anyone walking onto your property without permission could be prosecuted as a potential thief.

[Obelix]

I dont dispute it, but it's difficult to prove whilst ever the 'stolen' items remain on the property. Concealment might help in the convicting, but obviously it would be difficult to do the with a fridge freezer on the driveway. Hence my playful ps to foxy's post, someone looking at knickers on a washing line would struggle to convince anyone his intent to steal them wasn't there.

 

I can imagine a myriad of defences to the 'scrapman on my property scenario', that might be accepted, including his claiming he was inspecting the property with a view to knocking on your door to make you an offer for it, the prosecution would have to prove his intention to steal it, but there's little defence he could claim when the item has been moved from the property.

 

Quite and that's why I said way up the post that shops wait until they have left so that it's clear they were not just on the way to the till.

 

Although there is an implied right of access onot land for people with a reason, inspecting something you want to buy isnt one. You would have the right to go to the door to ask, but that right certainly doesn extend to wheeling it down the drive, especially if you;ve got a barrow or something with you for example.

 

The proescution merely have to prove that there is intent to deprive dishonestly - with a witness who would say that they took it without asking and were trying to squeeze it past the wagon I don;t think there would be any problems at all determining the state of intent of the person doing the moving.