Is there a difference between....
Discussion
As title, is there a difference between vehicle theft and Taking Without owners Consent or TWOCing for short? I know they are both the same thing but watching some of the docu programmes on tv some officers refer to it as theft and others as TWOCing, just wondered if there was a basic difference.
bobthemonkey said:
From my foggy memory, Theft requires an intention to permanently depreive, while TWOCing does not.
Yep. TWOC involves taking and being carried on or in etc or taking to be carried in, even if you plan to give it back after(so would not be a theft). That is the basic difference anyway.ipsg.glf said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
ipsg.glf said:
Isn't the joyrider guilty of theft of the petrol?
Prove it... could argue damage to tyres but again prove it... so new offence was far more cut and dry. Clever defence briefs will get people off things by introducing enough doubt.. leaky tank? prove it was not syphoned by someone else? etc etc
Mr_annie_vxr said:
ipsg.glf said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
ipsg.glf said:
Isn't the joyrider guilty of theft of the petrol?
Prove it... could argue damage to tyres but again prove it... so new offence was far more cut and dry. Clever defence briefs will get people off things by introducing enough doubt.. leaky tank? prove it was not syphoned by someone else? etc etc
However! A lot depends on how he leaves the vehicle. The trick is to prove that he treated the car as his own, regardless of the owner's rights to it.
The argument for the separate offence was that taking a car for a joyride was similar in guilt to using someone else's haribrush. Further many lawyers and politicians, bless 'em, were educated at Oxbridge where 'borrowing' bicycles was common. They obviously did not want their lifestyle not being available to their offspring just because one of the hoi poloi had his Ford Anglia taken when he should have had his chauffeur put it in a secure garage and sleep in it.
There is a clear case of theft whenever a person gets into a car and drives it away. The 'intention to permanently deprive' has been modified over the years sufficiently to cover TDA.
I can see the argument for a 50p hairbrush but cars costing £000s being taken from the owner, even for a short period, is theft pure and simple. If the person is not ignoring the owner's rights to the vehicle, what is he doing?
I tried one chap who drove the car he had taken without consent and then driven with an abandon that the owner never would have done, overevving and hacking around corners, sliding the back end. Or, to put it another way, driving it regardless of the owner's rights. But CPS extended their thanks to me and charged TDA. There was an appeal court decision on another point of law where the judge was quite clear in his statement that all TWOCs were theft but the CPS brief was not to be moved.
It's a cop out. But then there's little chance of a TDA merchant, if charged with theft, being punished any more severely so i suppose it doesn't matter.
The argument for the separate offence was that taking a car for a joyride was similar in guilt to using someone else's haribrush. Further many lawyers and politicians, bless 'em, were educated at Oxbridge where 'borrowing' bicycles was common. They obviously did not want their lifestyle not being available to their offspring just because one of the hoi poloi had his Ford Anglia taken when he should have had his chauffeur put it in a secure garage and sleep in it.
There is a clear case of theft whenever a person gets into a car and drives it away. The 'intention to permanently deprive' has been modified over the years sufficiently to cover TDA.
I can see the argument for a 50p hairbrush but cars costing £000s being taken from the owner, even for a short period, is theft pure and simple. If the person is not ignoring the owner's rights to the vehicle, what is he doing?
I tried one chap who drove the car he had taken without consent and then driven with an abandon that the owner never would have done, overevving and hacking around corners, sliding the back end. Or, to put it another way, driving it regardless of the owner's rights. But CPS extended their thanks to me and charged TDA. There was an appeal court decision on another point of law where the judge was quite clear in his statement that all TWOCs were theft but the CPS brief was not to be moved.
It's a cop out. But then there's little chance of a TDA merchant, if charged with theft, being punished any more severely so i suppose it doesn't matter.
streaky said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Aggravated TDA now covers situations where vehicle is damaged or driven dangerously IIRC
Such as using a mobile 'phone, or eating an apple ... or even ... speeding? - Streaky 
Mr_annie_vxr said:
ipsg.glf said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
ipsg.glf said:
Isn't the joyrider guilty of theft of the petrol?
Prove it... could argue damage to tyres but again prove it... so new offence was far more cut and dry. Clever defence briefs will get people off things by introducing enough doubt.. leaky tank? prove it was not syphoned by someone else? etc etc
DonnyMac said:
Kid with crowbar drives your car away = theft
Kid with 1/2 your DNA goes on holiday in your car = TWOC
Not only TWOC but he'll get a THWAK when he gets back.
....Kid with 1/2 your DNA goes on holiday in your car = TWOC
Not only TWOC but he'll get a THWAK when he gets back.
That is funny but true, i " borrowed my sisters car" when i was 16 a long long time ago and was charged with twok and lets just say the family atmosphere went down the pan very quickly after the visit from the fuzz
Jules360 said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
ipsg.glf said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
ipsg.glf said:
Isn't the joyrider guilty of theft of the petrol?
Prove it... could argue damage to tyres but again prove it... so new offence was far more cut and dry. Clever defence briefs will get people off things by introducing enough doubt.. leaky tank? prove it was not syphoned by someone else? etc etc
In those days syphoning was easy so the defence only had to show or introduce reasonable doubt about fuel and they could argue or suggest he replaces it but someone else may have stolen it. I have seen people who's fingerprints and DNA have been found in stolen vehicles get off when they they have introduce enough doubt (they may have got a lift sometime in the car) and have more previous that I have had hot dinners for car theft.
mak said:
DonnyMac said:
Kid with crowbar drives your car away = theft
Kid with 1/2 your DNA goes on holiday in your car = TWOC
Not only TWOC but he'll get a THWAK when he gets back.
....Kid with 1/2 your DNA goes on holiday in your car = TWOC
Not only TWOC but he'll get a THWAK when he gets back.
That is funny but true, i " borrowed my sisters car" when i was 16 a long long time ago and was charged with twok and lets just say the family atmosphere went down the pan very quickly after the visit from the fuzz
Again, the family atmosphere evaporated very very quickly!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff