On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:06:16 -0700 (PDT), next generation
wrote:
>On Mar 25, 8:55 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
>> "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
>
>TWOC is Section 12(1).
you really should learn to read.
TWOC is the whole of section 12.
>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)
i.e. theft or TWOC, so it is NOT irrelevant.
>
>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."
That is a defence to the TWOC charge.
But would only be available if the guy had previously been granted
permission by the owner - which could be the case, we have no idea. He
could even *be* the owner.
>
>Therefore the guy is guilty.
Almost certainly, unless it did belong to him or somebody he knows who
has previously indicated he is free to borrow it at will.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
GURU: One who knows more jargon than you.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |