Food & Drink3 mins ago
What The Cps Do..
37 Answers
In case you were wondering !
Some men have been charged in connection with taking discarded food from a skip :
http://
Don't know why the police bothered with the Vagrancy Act 1824. It is established law that property left in, say, a dustbin, for collection is not without an owner any more, nor is it abandoned (or 'res derelicta' as the lawyers would have it).
But do you think prosecuting this is a waste of time and money ?
Some men have been charged in connection with taking discarded food from a skip :
http://
Don't know why the police bothered with the Vagrancy Act 1824. It is established law that property left in, say, a dustbin, for collection is not without an owner any more, nor is it abandoned (or 'res derelicta' as the lawyers would have it).
But do you think prosecuting this is a waste of time and money ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
>>>It is established law that property left in, say, a dustbin, for collection is not without an owner any more, nor is it abandoned
True but the Theft Act 1968 states:
"A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest . . . if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it".
i.e. a person accused of theft has a statutory defence if, at the time of the alleged offence, he had a genuine belief that the owner of the property would not object to him taking it. (It is entirely irrelevant as to whether that belief was correctly founded or not). Any decent counsel should be able to argue that the defendants assumed that, by placing the food in a skip, Iceland staff had indicated that they had no further interest in it (unless, of course, there were signs displayed to the contrary). Remembering that it is not the job of defence counsel to prove innonence, but merely to show 'reasonable doubt', I can't see how the CPS decided that there was any realistic chance of obtaining convictions in this case.
Whle it might be argued that the defendants are charged under the Vagrancy Act, rather than the Theft Act (which, in itself, suggests that the CPS are struggling here), the Court would still need to determine wheher the actions of the defendants amounted to 'stealing' and, unless there are precedents which I'm unaware of, the definition of 'theft' laid down by Parliament in the 1968 Act is likely to be the one used by the Court.
True but the Theft Act 1968 states:
"A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest . . . if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it".
i.e. a person accused of theft has a statutory defence if, at the time of the alleged offence, he had a genuine belief that the owner of the property would not object to him taking it. (It is entirely irrelevant as to whether that belief was correctly founded or not). Any decent counsel should be able to argue that the defendants assumed that, by placing the food in a skip, Iceland staff had indicated that they had no further interest in it (unless, of course, there were signs displayed to the contrary). Remembering that it is not the job of defence counsel to prove innonence, but merely to show 'reasonable doubt', I can't see how the CPS decided that there was any realistic chance of obtaining convictions in this case.
Whle it might be argued that the defendants are charged under the Vagrancy Act, rather than the Theft Act (which, in itself, suggests that the CPS are struggling here), the Court would still need to determine wheher the actions of the defendants amounted to 'stealing' and, unless there are precedents which I'm unaware of, the definition of 'theft' laid down by Parliament in the 1968 Act is likely to be the one used by the Court.
The dustmen nit onlyclaimed to have thought the items abandoned but argued that the items were without an owner, BC, when they kept the selected items from the rubbish. The court ruled that the objects still belonged to someone under the Theft Act, in this case the Council.
The real question is, indeed, whether the taking is to be regarded by the jury as dishonest. A belief that property had been abandoned means that the defendant can't be convicted of theft , since it negates dishonesty . And even an unreasonable belief that property had been abandoned may be an honest one [R v Wood 2002, Court of Appeal] As to other elements of theft defences, set out in 2(!) of the Theft Act 1968 (one of which you refer to), the principle is that if a defendant has a genuine belief that one or other applies, though that belief be mistaken, he is not being dishonest. (Our dustmen were, presumably, not possessed of the necessary belief, because the conviction stood)
The real question is, indeed, whether the taking is to be regarded by the jury as dishonest. A belief that property had been abandoned means that the defendant can't be convicted of theft , since it negates dishonesty . And even an unreasonable belief that property had been abandoned may be an honest one [R v Wood 2002, Court of Appeal] As to other elements of theft defences, set out in 2(!) of the Theft Act 1968 (one of which you refer to), the principle is that if a defendant has a genuine belief that one or other applies, though that belief be mistaken, he is not being dishonest. (Our dustmen were, presumably, not possessed of the necessary belief, because the conviction stood)
I personally couldn't care less who takes what out of skips, however what I do dislike and it happens a lot at our place (co op) is that folks merrily sort through the bins, and discard what not wanted on the floor which we, the shop workers have to pick back up again after the rats have had a go. It's an ace job!
But yes, in answer to your question, it is a waste of time and money prosecuting them.
But yes, in answer to your question, it is a waste of time and money prosecuting them.
rocky, a magistrates' court costs £900 a day to run; a Crown Court costs £3,000; so proceeding with a Vagrancy Act case saves some money. It can only be tried in the magistrates' court . This case should take half a day to try. Above those running costs, I can only guess what the CPS costs are. New Judge may know what they claim in the magistrates' court. My guess is that preparation and court time costs them about £600 in a case like this.
Either way, the argument that it is in the public interest to prosecute seems feeble. Can't see a public outcry if these men weren't prosecuted. What nuisance did they cause and what loss? Trespassing is not a crime in itself, unless it is on the railway or M o D property or the like, so the prosecution couldn't prosecute without alleging some criminal intent. As explained above, it is hard to see a great chance of getting home when the intent is theft, because it is unlikely that the court will say that these men were being dishonest
Either way, the argument that it is in the public interest to prosecute seems feeble. Can't see a public outcry if these men weren't prosecuted. What nuisance did they cause and what loss? Trespassing is not a crime in itself, unless it is on the railway or M o D property or the like, so the prosecution couldn't prosecute without alleging some criminal intent. As explained above, it is hard to see a great chance of getting home when the intent is theft, because it is unlikely that the court will say that these men were being dishonest
At present, rocky, they are not charged with stealing anything but they are charged with being in an enclosed area (a yard) with intent to steal. It appears, from that charge, that they had not yet taken anything away but it is not clear. It looks as though they had taken something, from the skip, to eat later; the report seems to suggest they had. But whether theft or intent to steal, the prosecution still have to prove dishonesty.
