Would the outcome be the same if I stole a car?
Discussion
The circumstances presented mean seizure doesn't fall within criminal law. It falls within civil law.
Anyone could present those circumstances.
The Mail have just framed it as a specific anti-traveller story as if it only could happen to a traveller which is wrong.
Shame some here have fallen for it.
Anyone could present those circumstances.
The Mail have just framed it as a specific anti-traveller story as if it only could happen to a traveller which is wrong.
Shame some here have fallen for it.
La Liga said:
The circumstances presented mean seizure doesn't fall within criminal law. It falls within civil law.
Anyone could present those circumstances.
The Mail have just framed it as a specific anti-traveller story as if it only could happen to a traveller which is wrong.
Shame some here have fallen for it.
It isn't those on here who have fallen for anything. Once again let down by the police and our fAnyone could present those circumstances.
The Mail have just framed it as a specific anti-traveller story as if it only could happen to a traveller which is wrong.
Shame some here have fallen for it.
ked up legal system. You really wouldn't make it up.
La Liga said:
The circumstances presented mean seizure doesn't fall within criminal law. It falls within civil law.
Anyone could present those circumstances.
The Mail have just framed it as a specific anti-traveller story as if it only could happen to a traveller which is wrong.
Shame some here have fallen for it.
It isn't those on here who have fallen for anything. Once again let down by the police and our fAnyone could present those circumstances.
The Mail have just framed it as a specific anti-traveller story as if it only could happen to a traveller which is wrong.
Shame some here have fallen for it.
ked up legal system. You really wouldn't make it up.
Indeed. But theft by who? And therein lies the problem. IMO the goods should always remain the proprty of the victim - or the insurers if they have paid out - and should be seized until lawful ownership can be established. Unfortunately my opinions - or my even rarer outbreaks of commonsense - don't count for much.
Suppose you buy a car, in good faith, but it turns out to be stolen and still owned by someone else - probably an insurance company.
What do you expect to happen? The police aren't interested in seizing it, because you haven't committed a crime, but the owner is going to contact you and try to reclaim it via a civil route. Not really that extraordinary, is it?
The only interesting bit is why they don't go harder after the current holder for knowingly handling stolen goods.
TL;DR - wot La Liga said.
What do you expect to happen? The police aren't interested in seizing it, because you haven't committed a crime, but the owner is going to contact you and try to reclaim it via a civil route. Not really that extraordinary, is it?
The only interesting bit is why they don't go harder after the current holder for knowingly handling stolen goods.
TL;DR - wot La Liga said.
But if I went out and bought a car and it turned out to be stolen, the police would take it off me and return it to the owners/insurance company. I've seen it happen many times on the various TV shows where they follow the police around, and I've read about it many times also.
I think in this case they simply wanted to avoid a situation like the Dale Farm one.
I think in this case they simply wanted to avoid a situation like the Dale Farm one.
calibrax said:
I think in this case they simply wanted to avoid a situation like the Dale Farm one.
If you read the article you'll see that's not the case and the police consulted their force solicitors over the matter. You know, the people who legal experts. There's also comment from another solicitor in the article which concurs. It's not more complicated than that.
whoami said:
Surely a £30K item offered for £300 is slightly improbable?
For starters.
He was arrested, interviewed and it was evidentially judged there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. Normal procedure was followed unless anyone knows otherwise. For starters.
I would expect there was the will to prosecute and seize the vehicle (the consultation with the force solicitor suggests this). It just so happens this was outside the law.
La Liga said:
whoami said:
Surely a £30K item offered for £300 is slightly improbable?
For starters.
He was arrested, interviewed and it was evidentially judged there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. Normal procedure was followed unless anyone knows otherwise. For starters.
I would expect there was the will to prosecute and seize the vehicle (the consultation with the force solicitor suggests this). It just so happens this was outside the law.
La Liga said:
He was arrested, interviewed and it was evidentially judged there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. Normal procedure was followed unless anyone knows otherwise.
I would expect there was the will to prosecute and seize the vehicle (the consultation with the force solicitor suggests this). It just so happens this was outside the law.
There are different ways to do things ...I would expect there was the will to prosecute and seize the vehicle (the consultation with the force solicitor suggests this). It just so happens this was outside the law.
The force appear to have dropped a b
k - insufficient evidence to charge perhaps but the caravan could have been seized as evidence at the time of arrest and then returned to its owners.As things stand - no proceedings - it is a civil matter as you say.
It's still a s
t outcome though.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff