Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
> "next generation" wrote in message
> news:1007ff65-7519-42e8-a38a-b45494a1730a@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 25, 7:43 pm, "Matt" wrote:
>>> "Steve Walker" wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:64t24fF2ctehrU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>> "Bob Robertson" wrote in message
>>>>> news:Z5cGj.30115$kN5.20925@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>> I saw on one of these police programs a guy was caught on CCTV
>>>>>> late at night taking an unlocked bicycle and riding it around.
>>>>>> When the police caught up with him he was a youngish lad
>>>>>> probably in college who seemed a bit upset that his late night
>>>>>> drunken antics was going to leave him with his first criminal
>>>>>> record.
>>>
>>>>>> I was wondering, could he just have argued that he was going to
>>>>>> put it back where he found it once he finished riding it, hence
>>>>>> not 'permanently depriving' the owner? He was probably going to
>>>>>> keep it as a trophy but how would the police know?
>>>
>>>>> Apply your theory to a car/any household goods/etc.
>>>
>>>>> It was theft
>>>
>>>> Not really - that's why we have an offence called TWOC
>>>
>>> TWOC can be classed as theft, dependant on it's circumstances and
>>> dervives
>>> from the Theft Act 1968
>>
>> Correct, Its s12(1) but has a lesser punishment.
>
> It is NOT theft because there is no element of "intent to permanently
> deprive".
Exactamundo
|