Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Outbreak Of Common Sense

It seems that the CPS has decided to drop action against people who allegedly removed waste food from bins at the rear of a supermarket. Good.

Some years ago I heard an odd case of a man prosecuted for theft of a small item (I think that it was an old and rusty toolbox) from a public tip. In addition there was a heated dispute over the item in which someone received a black eye. In evidence we heard that waste that has been taken to the tip is the property of the Council (or in this case its contractors) so it was proper to convict.

It is a feature of a throwaway consumer society that lots of stuff is discarded, sometimes randomly, but it all belongs to someone.

My daughter lives in an area where people who want to get rid of serviceable things such as fridges and microwaves simply leave them at the front of the house. One neighbour left a fridge by the front gate, but there was no interest for several days. Neighbour then had a brainwave, and put a notice on the fridge saying "For Sale: £20".

It was gone in an hour or two.

26 comments:

  1. It is easy for us to be wise after the event but perhaps it wasn't quite so simple.
    The charge was not theft but being found in an enclosed space with whatever incorrigibly roguish mental element the 1824 Act demands. At least one media report stated that the persons concerned were seen climbing over a wall to get into the space. The thinking may well have been that they entered the space, which was presumably Iceland's private property, deliberately closed, with the intent to steal something - anything - and that it was just fate and the fact that they choose Iceland that resulted in the swag being some rotten tomatoes. Perhaps the prosecutor was concentrating on the intention, for which the men concerned were full responsible, rather than the outcome, over which they had less control? We all know now that the men say they took the food to eat and can all sympathise: but do we know that that is what they said in interview?

    And of course imagine the outrage if people thought the CPS was ditching cases for purely financial reasons.

    I have only seen a couple of media reports and cannot read minds, so the decision to charge may have been the worst ever, but the rush seen elsewhere to criticise an individual public servant in ignorance of the facts is rather sad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. At our local council tip the staff extract saleable items and take them to a separate area where they can be purchased at what are bargain prices. It's all official and, IMHO, provides a very useful service - some of the stuff on sale appears to be new, certainly nearly so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can see this decision coming back to bite the CPS. As written in a previous comment we don't know the facts but did they drop it just because the items stolen were old food. Theft is the taking of something with the intention of permanently depriving the owner thereof. It seems that Iceland was the owner and the food was in a private area.
    I recently took part in a food collection at Tesco for a Trussell Trust Foodbank. We had to check that what the public bought and gave to us was within its sell by date or, I was told, it had to go back to Tesco.
    I come from a generation when there were no sell by dates on food and we didn't waste any of it. In my view the time has come to change the food regulations such that if a person or organisation wants to have food that is 'officially' out of date, they should be able to take it from the supplier and the supplier should not be in trouble for having given it away. If food doesn't smell off, usually it isn't, whatever date is stamped on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Theft is the taking of something with the intention of permanently depriving the owner thereof". But doesn't the victim have a say in whether the "thief" is prosecuted? Iceland didn't even know about it . I suspect that invoking the Vagrancy Act doesn't need the "victim's" consent

      Delete
    2. Crimes are committed effectively against the state, not against an individual. The state taking ownership of these matters is one of the reasons we don't have vendettas and lynch mobs.

      Delete
    3. Also, you accidentally missed out the "dishonesty" element of the offence in English law. These little details are SO important.

      Delete
    4. The problem with sell by dates is that there is always a leeway of a day or two in order for the retailer to cover themselves if someone is taken ill and tries to make a claim.

      Delete
  4. During the war years, my late grandfather was caught red-handed, stealing food from chained public dustbins in the street, and using it to feed his properly registered pig. Romford mags: guilty. Sentence: unconditional discharge. He said he never did it again. Seems like common sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The supermarket involved (Iceland) did not want to take any action, but the 'crime' was spotted by the police and it was they who instigated the action. It was Iceland who persuaded the CPS to drop the case, according the The Guardian.

    It must have taken some deep searching to decide to prosecute via a 190-year-old law. This was probably so that the police had to save face as they had made arrests but were not sure which charges to bring.

    My nephew was taken into custody a few weeks ago because his sat nav had taken him onto a wide pathway (which could have resembled a road at 11pm) and into a boggy field where he got stuck. The problem for the police was that he proved it was a misdirection by the sat nav and they let him go because they had to admit no crime had been committed. A case of over zealous PCs trying to boost their figures no doubt. He lost out as it cost him £70 to be towed out of the field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deep searching? Hardly. It is a well known offence to all frontline police officers and is taught in training school.

      Delete
    2. Arrested for taking a wrong turning? Can't beat an unproveable internet anecdote to bash the police with.
      Jaded

      Delete
  6. The Vagrancy Act seems to be 'flavour of the month' at the moment. It is still often used when the police can't prove a dishonest act per se. For example, I had a chap in court the other day who was seen in someone's back garden by an alert neighbour and he then ran off. Now in all likelihood he would have been up for a bit of burglary had he not been seen and chased off. So, being found in an enclosed premises it was...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unfortunately Joe Public, you'll have to leave your paranoia about the police at home. The police were only there because a concerned member of the public had spotted the culprits scaling a fence into the secured yard and had called them to report a break in.

    Whatever you feel about the rights or wrongs of taking food from bins, it seems completely appropriate to me that the police should attend and arrest people who have broken and entered. What if they were there to steal equipment instead?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I live in Oxford, and belong to the Oxford freecycle group. There have always been people sending out information about stuff that can be found in skips around the city.
    John Gibson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does that make freecycle an organised crime ring? :-) Joking aside it does seem that anyone taking advantage of the information could be on dodgy (enclosed) ground.

      Delete
    2. I use Freecycle in my town (it's called Freegle here) and it works a treat. Buyers have to calll to make an appointment so you don't get odd bods strolling in..

      Delete
  9. It is a defence to a charge of theft that you genuinely believed that the person they belonged to would not mind your taking it. Theft Act 1968 2(1)(b). The belief does not have to be reasonable, though reasonableness is evidence that the belief was genuine.

    This defence may easily be applicable to pretty much any charge of taking items which are being thrown away, or things from dustbins or skips, even those on private property (though perhaps not those behind locked gates), and should more widely known. That's why you need a lawyer - the police don't have to ask you whether you thought the person they belonged to would mind, and if you are not aware that it is a defence you may well plead guilty when you are in fact not guilty.

    So for the Magistrates reading, if someone raises this as mitigation, you might consider rescinding their guilty plea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Though, aside from theft, be mindful that it is an offence fineable up to £1,000 to “sort over or disturb” any waste without the consent of whoever has provided the place where the waste is deposited. Environmental Protection Act 1990 s.60.

      Delete
    2. Sub Rosa, thank you. What went through my head on reading that was a vision of myself saying in horrified tones "Is it, by God?". In the vision I had a fine moustache.

      I have no explanation to offer for that. I just thought you might like to know.

      Delete
  10. My god what has it come to that the cops have nothing better to do than chase scavangers!
    They could more usefully nick those troublsome big issue sellers who these days if they can't get you to buy the magazine then go on to aske for "any spare change to buy a sandwich or cup of coffee"- clearly soliciting for alms, but noone gives a toss about prosecuting this sort of offence these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, as mentioned above, the police turned up because of a member of the public reporting a breaking and entering when they saw two individuals scaling the perimeter fence of a secured compound.

      Ben & Sub Rosa - thanks for your informed comments, they were very interesting. Plenty of bear traps for the layman to unwittingly step on.

      Delete
  11. What's the matter with you people ? Someone steals something from the supermarket trash. The supermarket doesn't care. A 'concerned member of the public' sees it, but is in no way threatened, endangered or disadvantaged. The cops have attended.

    You lot then contrive as many ways as possible to prosecute and punish. Ideas range from Theft (debatable per Ben), through vagrancy, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Sub Rosa), to some 1824 law about enclosed spaces.

    Presumably you make these suggestions to help a CPS that doesn't have the time for such creative thinking. So much for the quality and independence of the magistracy. If the participants here are JPs, then bias towards the prosecutor's side is clear, while you are all trying to show each other how clever you can be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the law. The law applies to everyone, imperfect though that application may be. Don't know who "you lot" is or are, but you are we, us, I, and the law even prevents discrimination against you. There is a lot to be said about freeganism, but none of it grants a right to nick stuff. However desperate one may be. There are other solutions for that.

      Delete
  12. I have followed this diary since its very first day. Then it was had informed content and the comments were thought provoking and added enlightened viewpoints.

    Now we get posts such as The Only Way To Travel? on 26.12.13 which was about a car journey. The comments have an air of one-upmanship, dragging down other commenters and trying to give an authoritative rambling that goes way above the layman's head. Not everyone here understands the deep workings of the justice system.

    This blog works best when it makes us realise that such aspects as sentencing are bound by the law, not by those who enforce it. To a certain extent it has evolved in the wrong direction. When the solo writer became a team it seemed a good idea in that it would add variety to the writings, but it looks to me to have evolved into a leaderless committee.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am writing this as the original Bystander, but after careful consultation with my Politbureau.

    I am sorry to disappoint any reader, but having kept this thing going for more than nine years, of course the tone will change. Pre-moderation is a regrettable necessity, as anyone who saw the flood of crap that I had to put up with might understand.

    I started the blog because, as a long-serving JP I was unhappy at the lack of understanding among the public about such an important part of our society as the lower courts that deal with 95 percent of all criminal cases. The blog archive includes good bits,dull bits, and bits that I am proud to have written. I have come to the attention of the mainstream media and made many radio broadcasts and a few TV ones.

    So be patient, old chap (and don't forget that I became a grandfather at the time that the blog started, and that means a very great deal to me).

    Watch this space, and cut a little slack to a well-meaning old fellow who loves his unpaid part-time job.

    ReplyDelete
  14. (moniker: ex-everything)

    I am surprised by the later responses in the comments section (not Bystander’s). I thought that this blog post, and the subsequent comments, were good evidence of the blog being on form. I love seeing the difference of opinion, and the range of laws which an incident can be dealt with. Being allowed a glimpse into an unknown world is fascinating. So thank you all for taking the time to keep this blog running.

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.