Accused of dog theft - URGENT HELP NEEDED
Discussion
Greendubber said:
superlightr said:
Thats What She Said said:
superlightr said:
its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.
Not quite..."A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
by the Op's own words they took the dog in to help them out. They were not given the dog.
There was no dishonesty so there is no theft. This is a civil matter, mainly due to the fact IT IS NOT THEFT.
Shuvi McTupya said:
Burwood said:
My brother ran both their cats over (his wife loved that cats). He ran out and got two new ones. She never noticed.
She didn't notice two cats being replaced for dopplegangers? I find that astonishing!By the way, are you Scottish?
Burwood said:
No not Scottish. They were kittens, maybe 3-4 months old. It's our families dirty secret.
Ah ok, yeah i guess you can get away with it when they are kittens 
I only asked about the Scottish thing due to your terminology when you said 'that cats'. I have only heard Scots doing that before
Greendubber said:
superlightr said:
Thats What She Said said:
superlightr said:
its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.
Not quite..."A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
by the Op's own words they took the dog in to help them out. They were not given the dog.
There was no dishonesty so there is no theft. This is a civil matter, mainly due to the fact IT IS NOT THEFT.
In a similar way, if you get accidentally overpaid by your employer and you refuse to give the money back, whilst you didn't dishonestly take the money, by refusing to give it back you are depriving the real owner their property and is therefore theft.
CaptainSlow said:
Greendubber said:
superlightr said:
Thats What She Said said:
superlightr said:
its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.
Not quite..."A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
by the Op's own words they took the dog in to help them out. They were not given the dog.
There was no dishonesty so there is no theft. This is a civil matter, mainly due to the fact IT IS NOT THEFT.
In a similar way, if you get accidentally overpaid by your employer and you refuse to give the money back, whilst you didn't dishonestly take the money, by refusing to give it back you are depriving the real owner their property and is therefore theft.
The dog wasn't mistakenly handed to the OP 11 months ago. There has been zero contact from the uncle, no 'hows the dog', visits to see it, money paid for the dogs care, no money for the dogs food since then. The OP has assumed ownership of the dog.
The uncle (IMO) needs to start a civil recovery. Never in a million years would the OP be charged & convicted with theft in these circumstances.
Greendubber said:
I still don't think so, the money situation would be a mistake by your employer, you know it's a mistake yet you keep the money - dishonest.
The dog wasn't mistakenly handed to the OP 11 months ago. There has been zero contact from the uncle, no 'hows the dog', visits to see it, money paid for the dogs care, no money for the dogs food since then. The OP has assumed ownership of the dog.
Also, it's hard to argue "keeping it is in the best interests of the money itself, they'd only abuse it" in most cases!The dog wasn't mistakenly handed to the OP 11 months ago. There has been zero contact from the uncle, no 'hows the dog', visits to see it, money paid for the dogs care, no money for the dogs food since then. The OP has assumed ownership of the dog.
CaptainSlow said:
Greendubber said:
superlightr said:
Thats What She Said said:
superlightr said:
its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.
Not quite..."A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
by the Op's own words they took the dog in to help them out. They were not given the dog.
There was no dishonesty so there is no theft. This is a civil matter, mainly due to the fact IT IS NOT THEFT.
In a similar way, if you get accidentally overpaid by your employer and you refuse to give the money back, whilst you didn't dishonestly take the money, by refusing to give it back you are depriving the real owner their property and is therefore theft.
I think the issue here is going to be the claim that they are going to keep the dog to prevent it being subjected to further cruelty & that there is no 'dishonesty' and therefore no offence of theft.
Ultimately the decision to prosecute would be made by the Police in conjunction with the CPS.
I would be very surprised if this ever made it before a court & if it did I would be entirely unsurprised if a judge didn't throw it out with 'words of advice' to the prosecution in the light of the ruling made in Ivey v Genting [2017] (basically the belief of the alleged offender as to the facts & whether that would be regarded as honest or dishonest according to the objective standards of ordinary decent people - what I believe was called 'the man on the Clapham omnibus')
It replaces the previous test in R v Ghosh[1982]
As ever, I stand to be corrected by our learned members!
Edited by paintman on Monday 16th July 19:29
Shuvi McTupya said:
OP, I would definitely start thinking about CCTV, your relatives sound like the kind or people to try something..
They don't have the IQ for that. Still no contact from the police, or anyone in fact. My uncle decided to call my nan up late the other night to try and pester her into siding with him (she doesn't, she wants to stay out of it for obvious reasons) to the point of reducing her to tears. He has no decency at all.
Will update the thread when something actually happens. Once again, thanks for all of the comments and support.
CaptainSlow said:
Greendubber said:
superlightr said:
Thats What She Said said:
superlightr said:
its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.
Not quite..."A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
by the Op's own words they took the dog in to help them out. They were not given the dog.
There was no dishonesty so there is no theft. This is a civil matter, mainly due to the fact IT IS NOT THEFT.
In a similar way, if you get accidentally overpaid by your employer and you refuse to give the money back, whilst you didn't dishonestly take the money, by refusing to give it back you are depriving the real owner their property and is therefore theft.
NewbishDelight said:
DomesticM said:
Just in case anyone wanted closure, it turns out despite owing £50,000+ worth of debt, they've gone out and bought another dog. So much for loving this one and fighting for him!
Utter, utter b
ds.Glad your hound is safe, though.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff