This is a link to the Citizen's Advice Bureaux report on civil recovery schemes, the main operator of which is Retail Loss Prevention.

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/unreasonable_demands_final.pdf

Note that the report is copyright CAB.

Yes CP it it is copyright but just to clarify CAB have agreed that it can be circulated by anyone something I encourage members to do

No matter who you are no matter who you know there must be someone who would benefit from reading it

Saved a copy and will read later

They rely at least in part on the Nottingham Court Tesco matter

The CAB document is interesting but provides little if any direct assistance to those accused of theft from a shop where there is some doubt as to the existance of intent to steal.

As should be well known there are 2 requirements that must be met before theft is established. These are 1. The act of taking the property (actus reus), and 2. The intention to steal (mens rea). Both are required before any person can be convicted and must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, this is the level of proof required by the criminal law. In a situation where a person is, for example distracted by a child, suffers from a mental illness, or a physical illness which affects memory, the existence of intent to steal MUST be proved, of course it must be proved in every case but these are typical circumstances where proving intent would be difficult if not impossible.

The actions of the civil recovery firms are also somewhat risky (to them). This arises where a person is suffering from depression or other illness which may lead to suicide as a result of the receipt of the threatening letters. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 can be quite helpful.

If You are in reciept of these lovely letters in your reply mention your illness and advise them that your executors have been made aware of the provisions of Section 1 (1) (a) & (b) and Section 2 (1)© (iii) of the Act. That does tend to make them pay attention.

there are five points to prove as under

The definition of theft is

The DISHONEST APPROPRIATION of PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER With the INTENTION of PERMANENTLY DEPRIVING the other of it

1. dishonest appropriation

2/ property

3/ belonging to another

4/ intention

5/ permanently depriving (which is why car theft is usually referred to as joyriding or TWOC (Taking without the owners consent) and because the CPS cannot prove that the theif intended to "permanently deprive " the owner of it

a total cop out since the TWOC-er could also be charged with the theft of petrol (which i am sure he had no intention of returning to the owner) and the wear and tear on the car (depreciation)

True but the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea mean exactly the same thing.