On Mar 25, 9:08 pm, next generation wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:06 pm, "Matt" wrote:
>
> > "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote in messagenews:EwdGj.13516$w51.9492@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > > Sorry, I was going on the stated facts, not some other version.
>
> > OK, the stated facts are that it is a pushbike.
> > You cannot TWOC a pushbike.
> > Therefore it's theft.
> > No other version
>
> Theft or or taking a bicycle which is s12(5) of the Theft act.
Repeat of previous post: my ending arguement is as such:
TWOC is Section 12(1). Theft is 1(1) At the moment we're dealing with
a bicycle being taken. TWOC is therefore irrelevant at the moment. The
two acts applicable are theft or taking a bicycle which is s12(5)
Theft Act 1968, Sec 12(6) the defence states "A person does not commit
an offence under this section by anything done in the belief that he
has lawful authority to do it or that he would have the owner's
consent if the owner knew of his doing it and the circumstances of
it."
I very much doubt the owner would have consented to some guy trying to
ride away on his bike whilst drunk.Assuming he didn't, that leaves
lawful authority - Lawful authority is defined as "police or local
authority power of removal, or repossession by a finance company" (See
Police Legal National Database, Blackstones)
Please refer to R v Marchand and McAllister (1985) 80 Cr App R 361
"Intended use sufficent" - intent to ride away on the bike is theft.
Therefore the guy is guilty. |