Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3234 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by JonCris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saved a copy and will read later


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Edited by diddydicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...