"next generation" wrote in message
news:32478d41-6b27-45eb-b0eb-e574640585af@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Mar, 19:59, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
>> "next generation" wrote in message
>>
>> news:24b8e35f-d5a2-4858-beaf-127f385f5d46@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > for theft in law the police have to prove that you:
>> > -dishonestly
>> > -appropriate
>> > -property
>> > -belonging to another
>> > -intenting to deprive the other
>>
>> > borrowing amounts to taking for his/her own use and is the same as
>> > outright taking, regardless of whether you planned to return it.
>>
>> It only amounts to an outright taking if, when returned, the bicycle has
>> lost what is called "its virtue"- e.g. taking a season ticket, using it
>> up,
>> and returning the actual piece of card itself still amounts to theft of
>> the
>> season ticket, because when returned it is useless. The same cannot be
>> said
>> of a bicycle, if it's still a bicycle when it is returned.
>
> I'm sure I've already replied to this, but it hasn't appeared. Your
> wrong on both counts. The intention to deprive happens because the
> victim does not know who took the bike and for what purpose and has
> not given consent for it to happen. Consent is the main issue. Unless
> you knew the person and could argue implied consent, it's theft.
Wrong again. The intention is in the mind of the perp and nothing to do with
the victim.
If he honestly intends to return it, it's not theft, and what the victim
thinks is irrelevant.
If he honestly thinks the victim would have consented had he known of the
circumstances,
it's not TWOC. See Theft Act 1968, Sec 12(6). Certainly a statement such as
"you can borrow it whenever you like" raises an implied consent for a
particular taking. "You can borrow it as long as you only go to town"
likewise, but if the taker doesn't go to town, he commits the offence, see
Singh v Rathour 1998 1 WLR 422 and McKnight v Davis 919740 RTR 209
|