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

[foxy lady]

Then I suggest you look at the legislation which tells you what is and isn't theft - I did reference it further up the page for you.

 

Theft Act, 1968. with the section of interested extracted for you.

 

Now if you wish to try and refute it - please come back with reasons.

 

Perhaps you should also look up the thread and the many others on the subject, because I see lots of folk posting that they have had items taken. I have seen lots of posts where scrap men were interupted in the act, and I have seen many posings where these guys have been caught on CCTV or had registrations noted. The one thing that is in short supply is a load of postings where successful prosecutions have been obtained. But I'm sure you will rectify that now.

[Obelix]

Perhaps you should also look up the thread and the many others on the subject, because I see lots of folk posting that they have had items taken. I have seen lots of posts where scrap men were interupted in the act, and I have seen many posings where these guys have been caught on CCTV or had registrations noted. The one thing that is in short supply is a load of postings where successful prosecutions have been obtained. But I'm sure you will rectify that now.

 

Sorry, rectify what? I wasnt aware I was responsible for the ineptitude or otherwise of SYP.

[Berberis]

..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.

 

But that's not what this thread is about. The OP had someone trying to take items from her property. That's theft, now we can get on with discussing how to deal with this problem rather then arguing the toss over what is theft!

[Cyclone]

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.

 

There's little defence if he's already attempting to manoeuvre it past a transit parked on the drive, as described in the OP. Inspecting it in order to make an offer wouldn't include an attempt to remove it from the property would it!

[Cyclone]

Not so - look up the thread for the reasons why.

 

You do need to establish an intent to deprive though, so it isn't theft as soon as you pick it off the shelf, unless you intend (and it can be established beyond reasonable doubt) to steal it.

[boyfriday]

There's little defence if he's already attempting to manoeuvre it past a transit parked on the drive, as described in the OP. Inspecting it in order to make an offer wouldn't include an attempt to remove it from the property would it!

 

Crikey, I was giving an example of a defence that might be accepted that another poster had already mentioned and I'd replied to, wasn't specifically responding to the OP!

[boyfriday]

But that's not what this thread is about. The OP had someone trying to take items from her property. That's theft, now we can get on with discussing how to deal with this problem rather then arguing the toss over what is theft!

 

It might not be of any interest to you, but clearly the discussion as to what constitutes theft has been a very interesting one and of benefit to other users.

[Rupert_Baehr]

. .

[Rupert_Baehr]

. .

[Obelix]

Burglary is the act of breaking and entering a residence for the intention of committing a crime or while lawfully within, commit a crime and to thereafter break out.

 

At common law, as William Blackstone stated in his Commentaries on the Law of England, Volume 4 (1759), the original offence was limited to night-time occurrences and dwellings (residential premises). Night-time was determined to be when it was so dark that a person's face could not be readily discerned.

 

Contemporary criminal law developed by statute has, for the most part, removed the "night-time" distinction and, in some jurisdictions, such as in England, the "dwelling home" distinction.

 

'For the intention of committing a crime'. The crime is not limited to offences under the Theft Act.

 

(I can't remember the case citation offhand [and I'm feeling too lazy to go and look it up] but: "A young man climbed up a ladder intending to enter the bedroom of a young lady. He put a part of his body through the open window" (I think it was his foot ).

 

He was convicted of burglary - though he had no intention to steal anything.

 

Section 9(3) of the Tehft act notwithstanding details what can be considered a building. For reasons beyond me, the shed was not considered a building, and so they could not make burglary but they did go or criminal damage whcih is easier to prove.