"next generation" wrote in message
news:7ded0ba4-e576-467b-90f8-3b7468df3982@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
Assuming it is proved that he had that intent, rather than just ride round a
carpark. I doubt the case says anything like that.
|