"Janitor of Lunacy" wrote in message
news:gNcGj.84556$M9.39048@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "next generation" wrote in message
> news:1007ff65-7519-42e8-a38a-b45494a1730a@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 25, 7:43 pm, "Matt" wrote:
>>> "Steve Walker" wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:64t24fF2ctehrU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Matt wrote:
>>> >> "Bob Robertson" wrote in message
>>> >>news:Z5cGj.30115$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".
How do you know they are not going to permananetly deprive the 'victim'. As
i said, it depends on the circumstancs. I.e were they going to return it
safely or stick it in a canal.
|