Safe Speed Forums

No JT, you are not alone in considering car theft serious.

The above note from Fisherman demonstrates the double standards applied. There is no difference between stealing cash and a car. The question of "permanent deprivation" is a total irrelevance. Perhaps we should consider the cash removal as just a loan that the lender didn't know he had made.

Maybe our legal eagles could tell me if the prosecution have to prove the intent to permanently deprive every time in order to get any conviction for theft. Almost impossible, I would have thought.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I agree with you, JT.

The above statement about "permanent deprivation" having to be proved is daft. Perhaps we shoud reclassify thefts of cash to be "loans" which the lender didn't realise he had made. By the same logic, these cash robberies would then not be theft and thus the crime figures improved.

As for showing intention, this is pretty nigh impossible. Anyway, isn't the act itself the crime, not the offender's state of mind.

PS. Sorry about the double post - my system crashed as I pressed submit.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I'm with you JT, but I can see some of the difficulties faced by the legal system too.

Crimes against property must surely generally be 'less serious' than crimes against people and especially crimes of violence. So stealing a car must surely be less serious than say, pushing an old lady to the ground to steal her handbag. It's this low level violent crime that helps position car theft lower still.

The other problem hinges around the legal definition of theft, where intent to permanently deprive must be proven. Clearly if some one steals a car to 'drive around for a bit', or simply to get home having missed the last bus, 'intent to permanently deprive' cannot be proven. So we have an offence of TWOC. But clearly theft crimes where intent to permanently deprive exists need to be ranked higher than TWOC.

I think the solution rests with charging TWOCers with criminal damage (breaking locks or whatever), theft of petrol (the petrol in the tank that they used), driving without insurance etc. Hefty compensation orders should be made for the vehicle owner's stress and inconvenience.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Here we go then: straight off the top of my head, JT's scale of penalties for theft...

1. "Petty" theft. Eg first time offence of stealing sweets from a shop; pilferage of small amounts of office supplies for personal use etc:
Police Caution, repeat offences a moderate fine. Compensation at discretion of court depending on circumstances.
2. "Opportune" theft. Eg snatching of handbag left unattended. If no aggravating factors such as pre-meditation, violence, high value of item; and if genuine contrition is shown, full return of items then a short suspended prison sentence.
3. Theft of item of considerable value (say £1,000 as a guide). Three month prison sentence as an absolute minimum. Aggravating factors would be breaking and entering, second or subsequent offence, intent of permanent deprivation, violence, each of which adds a further 3 months (or more depending on the level of violence). Mitigating factors might be genuine remorse and return of item undamaged; but the 3 month minimum sentence would be an absolute.

I would also regard that theft of a motor vehicle is in itself an aggravating factor, as we know from the fatality statistics that stolen cars are highly over-represented in road accidents and therefore it makes sense to strive to deter this particular type of theft, for the good of the community at large. I'd regard this as ideologically similar to the way in which you would (rightly) expect a substantially stiffer prison sentence for assaulting a policeman.

This is only a rough guess, but I'd be intereseted to hear any comments, and in particular an idea of what actual sentences the above crimes would be likely to incur.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

The definition of car theft as not really being theft has always struck me as special pleading. There are several ways in which an intention to permenantly deprive can be shown, as listed here: http://www.policeuk.com/study/law_theft.html

If the taker could just claim "I was going to return it eventually" then hardly anything would ever be theft. I once asked a law student friend of mine, hypothetically couldn't someone just take goods from a shop, and claim he was going to return them if caught? The answer is no, as taking them from the shop is incompatible with the shop's ownership of the goods.

The first paragraph seems to imply that taking a car is a victimless crime and thus less serious. This is clearly false. The victims are the customers of the company "losing" the vehicle or policyholders of the insurer as they will certainly have to pay more for the services provided in the future.

The second paragraph does not say if the mitigation was given any credence but seems to imply the idea that it is OK to steal from "the rich". It isn't. The rich are, of course, anyone with more cash than the putative thief and implies that they must have got their wealth by illegal means and are thus justifiable targets.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I don't think I ever agree with minimum sentences. They are always made with good intentions, but there is inevitably a case that cannot be predicted with foresight where the minimum is too harsh. For example, I would be worried about things like disputes between friends and families leading to cases where someone takes a car assuming permission would be given but then finding themselves charged with theft. But I'm even more worried about the things I can't foresee.

TWOC is a part of The Theft Act (1968?) and, therefore, TWOC is theft.
I had this discussion with an insurance company several years ago when the young son of one of my co-directors took, without consent, her Merc SL whilst she was out and managed to crash into two other cars. He was 17 at the time and had just had 2 driving lessons in a Metro!
The insurers tried to say that we were not insured, as she had allowed him to drive. I then pointed out that even if she was such a bad mother as to give her young son the keys to a powerfuls sports car and invite him to 'go out to play', then as it was a company car, that permission would be illegal. They then tried to say that there was no intention to deprive the owner of the car permanently. I said that TWOC was an offence under the Theft Act and as we were covered for theft they would repair the car since I had paid the premium, which they had accepted.
The young man was charged with DC&A, Driving Without a Licence, Driving Without Insurance and TWOC! He learned the hard way!

So what is the purpose of the clipboard fisherman ? ...is it solely to cover the NHS trust against an NIP arriving due to you having knowingly or unknowingly having been pinged ? Or is there some other valid business or technical purpose in recording your useage ?

Or in other words, who actually checks the data you have entered into the clipboard log ?

And what sanctions would there be against you or your fellow employees if you were lazy, inefficient or disorganised ? And what about those who realise that there is no great advantage to them naming themselves when they are worried that that SCP van back there might just have pinged them ?

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

What would in happen in the case of two people in a company vehicle who share the driving for a trip? My boss and I do this frequently on long journeys and if we were to receive a NIP two weeks later we would be very unlikely to know who was driving at a particular time.

Observer that is absolutely correct, it was meant to be pejorative. But as an unreasoned analysis it was not meant to be.

The questions to be asked are

1 What is the business benefit of keeping records?

Simply alluding to "good business practice" is not good enough. The size of the business is really irrelevant to the principal. Businesses keep records for statutory purposes and to provide data for financial analysis, no other reason. I would claim that it would be unreasonable to expect businesses to keep records for any other purposes. As I said, the implication that not keeping records is somehow unreasonable and a great deal of work has been put in by the CPS and court system to build and maintain a fiction that businesses should keep records but not for the express purpose of defending agains a S172 charge.

2 What are the sanctions that can be imposed against those employees who forget, don't bother, or deliberately avoid filling in records?

I'd venture to suggest that the act of failing to fill in a company record cannot be treated more severely than filling in any other record; ie persistent offenders can be warned, then formally warned several more times before being dismissed without near certain risk of an Industrial tribunal unfair dismissal case being taken against the employer. Yet each of those failures could result in an NIP that the employer cannot be sure of defending himself against. And as mentioned here if the employer is a partnership or sole trader the courts especially here in Wales will seek to award points as well as a fine.

oops pejorative (sp)!

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Yes I argued this one too. But the magistrates here are easily satisfied by the CPS's pre-prepared speech about what "....other businesses do " in terms of keeping a little whiteboard next to the key hook to record who had taken the keys. Clearly she had not thought it through as to what if 2 or 3 employees had put their names down or how many whiteboards should we be using to keep the records for 10 weeks in our case. I heard the same scenario from the Clerk half an hour earlier who was trying to persuade me to plead "guilty". It could be that he'd heard the same standard speech or some might think it indicative of a conspiracy that the partnership arrangement may have created between CPS and court employees.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

I hear this a lot and it surprises me every time.
When I do presentations about the work of the courts I always set the group a quick test to put a number of offences in order of seriousness. Theft of cars comes a long way down the list.

With three friends I support my local rugby team. We travel all over the place, always in a company car belonging to one of the others. His view is that if it is stolen or damaged the company pays for it. which is why he is willing to park his car in places I wouldn't park mine.

We even hear it in court. Its quite common for the CPS to add the words "it was a company car" when prosecuting theft/criminal damage/TWOC. I presume they feel they are being fair by so doing, even though they should be aware that it would make no difference to sentence.




The fact remains that theft, of a car, a mobile phone or cash is a different offence from TWOC.

I agree with that statement, doesn't alter the fact that many others don't.



To you maybe. To the police, the CPS. defence lawyers and every member of the judiciary its crucial.







This is an excellent tutorial on the subject.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:PHUG ... =firefox-a

But accurate nevertheless.

There is a charge of aggravated TWOC which, subject to some conditions, can be heard in the crown court where it carries 2 years custody.

"Aggravated" means that there was an accident and/or damage occuring after the vehicle was taken.

It wasn't meant to imply that. As with almost all the things I post, it is statement of how things are.



It wasn't. But it does illustrate the thinking that is so common these days.

If only parliament, the Law Lords, the Appeal Court and the High Court agreed with you. Life would be so much simpler.

As I understand it they are filed until and unless they are needed. Either in response to a NIP or a complaint from a member of the public about poor driving standards makes it necessary to ID the driver.



The full might of the hospital disciplinary process would swing into action. I could be banned from driving a hospital car. That would mean paying for busines use insurance on my own vehicle, paying for parking places at the hospitals I visit - thats if I can find a space. With no way to claim the money back.
If I refuse to use my own car, and can't use an official one the patients would suffer and thats something I won't permit. So I obey the rules.

JPs are required to follow established precedent which has everything to do with the law and nothing to do with comments by the CPS.
If we failed to do so the case would be overturned on appeal. Which is of no benefit to the defendant involved.



Clerks are obliged to assist unrepresented defendants to put their case. Sometimes that advice takes the form of "you haven't got a hope with that defence if you plead guilty it will reduce the sentence".



Only those of a suspicious nature who don't know much about the justice system.