Is it stealing if...
Discussion
...you find some money on the floor? Is there a difference between finding it in a shop or on the street? Would you hand in any money you find, to staff if in a shop or to the police if on the street, no matter what the value? 1p? £1? £10? £20?
Personally, I would've handed the £20 note in if I found it in a shop, but I still can't help thinking that this lady has been treated a bit harshly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffor...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wo...
Personally, I would've handed the £20 note in if I found it in a shop, but I still can't help thinking that this lady has been treated a bit harshly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffor...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wo...
Not really. If she'd come clean in the first place, handed the £20 back I bet the police/CPS wouldn't have given a toss: It's the fact she lied about it right up until she was shown the CCTV evidence. At that point you might as well carry the prosecution along to conclusion, not knowing the law is no excuse.
Would I have picked the note up and pocketed it? Damn right I would have. However, I also wouldn't have attempted to lie my way out of trouble in the first place. The 'crime' wasn't really what she was charged for, it was the attempt to deceive (and I suspect, her attitude!).
Would I have picked the note up and pocketed it? Damn right I would have. However, I also wouldn't have attempted to lie my way out of trouble in the first place. The 'crime' wasn't really what she was charged for, it was the attempt to deceive (and I suspect, her attitude!).
Theft by finding.
Independent said:
Simon Dykes, mitigating, said the matter should have been dealt with by a police caution.
Independent said:
Ms Bailey had initially told police that she had not pocketed the money but later admitted it when shown the footage and pleaded guilty to theft.
I agree it should have, but she decided to try and lie her way out which meant she was ineligible for a caution. I had a bit of a mis-spent youth, and if that taught me anything, it's telling the truth to the Old Bill is a very good idea.
Often, they'll ask questions they KNOW the answer to. Yours just needs to match.
If this woman had stuck her hands up when initially questioned, she'd almost certainly got away with a caution.
Another thing my mis-spent youth taught me is to always be polite to policemen, even when they are deliberately being a dick about something.
Often, they'll ask questions they KNOW the answer to. Yours just needs to match.
If this woman had stuck her hands up when initially questioned, she'd almost certainly got away with a caution.
Another thing my mis-spent youth taught me is to always be polite to policemen, even when they are deliberately being a dick about something.
xjay1337 said:
Isn't there a limit to the amount where it's "found" as in you can keep it or "you should hand it in"?
I wouldn't hand any amount in to be honest unless it was a significant amount (over £100).
No there isn't a limit. Have to make reasonable enquires into finding the owner. I wouldn't hand any amount in to be honest unless it was a significant amount (over £100).
It's pretty obvious from just the basic description of the case what happened.
Accused pleaded guilty after seeing the CCTV, which would tend to suggest - very strongly - that she picked up the money very close to the guy, knew he had dropped it and made no attempt to give it back to him.
That's some distance away from "finding money on the ground" and anyone suggesting otherwise is in my opinion using mental gymnastics to try and justify theft. If I was behind someone at a cashpoint and they dropped some money immediately in front of me it wouldn't even occur to me to pick it up and pocket it. Genuinely finding a note on the street with no one in immediate proximity is of course entirely different.
Accused pleaded guilty after seeing the CCTV, which would tend to suggest - very strongly - that she picked up the money very close to the guy, knew he had dropped it and made no attempt to give it back to him.
That's some distance away from "finding money on the ground" and anyone suggesting otherwise is in my opinion using mental gymnastics to try and justify theft. If I was behind someone at a cashpoint and they dropped some money immediately in front of me it wouldn't even occur to me to pick it up and pocket it. Genuinely finding a note on the street with no one in immediate proximity is of course entirely different.
MorganP104 said:
I had a bit of a mis-spent youth, and if that taught me anything, it's telling the truth to the Old Bill is a very good idea.
Often, they'll ask questions they KNOW the answer to. Yours just needs to match.
If this woman had stuck her hands up when initially questioned, she'd almost certainly got away with a caution.
I think you're certainly right in these circumstances. The officer who managed to pick up this major crime would want to deal with it quickly. A caution would be much less work than a prosecution file. Often, they'll ask questions they KNOW the answer to. Yours just needs to match.
If this woman had stuck her hands up when initially questioned, she'd almost certainly got away with a caution.
I expect she didn't have legal advice at the police station which anyone being questioned by the police should have. If she had, I expect she would have had a caution on the day of the interview rather than a conviction for dishonesty which will show on DBS checks.
It would be interesting to know exactly how many hours were spent on this investigation from the initial call to the conclusion. If the time spent by everyone, from the police officers to everyone in the court, as well as the time spent preparing the statement by the Chief Inspector, is all added up, I would guess that 20-30 man hours would probably be the minimum amount of collective time, the cost of which would be running into hundreds of pounds. All for £20.
Yet if the car belonging to the "victim" of this heinous crime had been stolen or vandalised with losses or damages of several thousand pounds, they would only receive a crime reference number and nothing more would've been done.
I generally defend the police but this seems to be a complete over-reaction. I would have expected the call handler to give the same excuse they use for not dealing with car crime and terminate things there.
Yet if the car belonging to the "victim" of this heinous crime had been stolen or vandalised with losses or damages of several thousand pounds, they would only receive a crime reference number and nothing more would've been done.
I generally defend the police but this seems to be a complete over-reaction. I would have expected the call handler to give the same excuse they use for not dealing with car crime and terminate things there.
QuickQuack said:
It would be interesting to know exactly how many hours were spent on this investigation from the initial call to the conclusion. If the time spent by everyone, from the police officers to everyone in the court, as well as the time spent preparing the statement by the Chief Inspector, is all added up, I would guess that 20-30 man hours would probably be the minimum amount of collective time, the cost of which would be running into hundreds of pounds. All for £20.
Yet if the car belonging to the "victim" of this heinous crime had been stolen or vandalised with losses or damages of several thousand pounds, they would only receive a crime reference number and nothing more would've been done.
I generally defend the police but this seems to be a complete over-reaction. I would have expected the call handler to give the same excuse they use for not dealing with car crime and terminate things there.
What do you suppose the Police do regards investigating crimes where there is no direct evidence of what happened & who committed the offence, such as in your vandalised car example? Where, what and how much time do you think they should spend investigating offences where there is ultimately nothing to go on? How much time would you like for them to waste going nowhere and achieving nothing, before you are satisfied that they have spent the requisite amount of time on it to quell your personal anguish?Yet if the car belonging to the "victim" of this heinous crime had been stolen or vandalised with losses or damages of several thousand pounds, they would only receive a crime reference number and nothing more would've been done.
I generally defend the police but this seems to be a complete over-reaction. I would have expected the call handler to give the same excuse they use for not dealing with car crime and terminate things there.
Compare that with an offence where there is decisive and unambiguous CCTV evidence of a person committing the offence, coupled with the public interest angle of being seen to prosecute someone for it (since we're all talking about it) to disincentivise others who might think about doing it themselves.. I'd imagine the sociological value in that context certainly exceeds the man hours cost.
QuickQuack said:
It would be interesting to know exactly how many hours were spent on this investigation from the initial call to the conclusion. If the time spent by everyone, from the police officers to everyone in the court, as well as the time spent preparing the statement by the Chief Inspector, is all added up, I would guess that 20-30 man hours would probably be the minimum amount of collective time, the cost of which would be running into hundreds of pounds. All for £20.
Yet if the car belonging to the "victim" of this heinous crime had been stolen or vandalised with losses or damages of several thousand pounds, they would only receive a crime reference number and nothing more would've been done.
I generally defend the police but this seems to be a complete over-reaction. I would have expected the call handler to give the same excuse they use for not dealing with car crime and terminate things there.
You can't just ignore it just because it's relatively minor when there are reasonable lines of enquiry i.e. CCTV of the matter and a named suspect. Yet if the car belonging to the "victim" of this heinous crime had been stolen or vandalised with losses or damages of several thousand pounds, they would only receive a crime reference number and nothing more would've been done.
I generally defend the police but this seems to be a complete over-reaction. I would have expected the call handler to give the same excuse they use for not dealing with car crime and terminate things there.
A voluntary interview and caution would have taken little time. The reason it got blown out of proportion was because the girl decided to lie when being interviewed.
Ki3r said:
xjay1337 said:
Isn't there a limit to the amount where it's "found" as in you can keep it or "you should hand it in"?
I wouldn't hand any amount in to be honest unless it was a significant amount (over £100).
No there isn't a limit. Have to make reasonable enquires into finding the owner. I wouldn't hand any amount in to be honest unless it was a significant amount (over £100).
A finder does not have to take reasonable steps to find the owner, but may keep possession if it is unlikely that the owner could be traced by taking reasonable steps. However, if you take reasonable steps and are unable to find the owner then you may retain the property.
The law revolves around the word reasonable. £5,000 is unlikely to remain unmissed by the owner and they will probably report the matter to the police. £1 - unlikely to miss. Where to draw the line? That's what lawyers make their money from.
In reading this case, the woman refused to tell the truth. She proved herself to be dishonest. The law and policing is all about dishonesty. Going from a caution to prosecution is all about guidelines. The CPS decided that the matter was worth charging, not the police.
bunglesprout said:
whoami said:
xjay1337 said:
I wouldn't hand any amount in to be honest
Irony level = Grandmaster
That's just made my day. More recognition deserved.
I found a chaps wallet recently, in a gutter when taking my girls to school. but he had 2 driving licence's with differing addresses on. WTF ?
then V5 log book slips with council addresses on. but slightly made up addresses. (I know as I work for the landlord that owns them!)
couldn't find him via moron book. tried the houses to no avail as they were near
handed it into plod.
he did ring me eventually (from details I'd left at his moody houses)
he was gobsmacked someone had handed it in.
I picked up a "fit bit" thing on last night from the road too. Here we go again FFS.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff