• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

London Couple Use Man's Car On Regular Basis—But Don't Actually Steal It

Police stated no offence had occurred!

Wtf?

Didn't the police even confiscate the signal replicator the couple used to break into the guy's Lexus?
 
RaM said:
If they had a means of driving the car why not charge them with being
in charge of a motor vehicle wile under the influence of drink or drugs.
Click to expand...
The car uses a security code that they didn't have, so they couldn't drive it.
 
The implication is that there is a legal loophole within English laws covering trespass, in respect of entry into cars.

I'm unfamiliar with certain chunks of English law, but I've a vague recollection that Police and other Authorised Bodies with constabulary powers eg UKBA are able to enter mobile homes/ caravans/ motorhomes/ tents etc without a warrant, and with proportionate force/ presumed invitation. This would be yet-another case for @maximus otter to make extended comment upon (magisterium pro bono et sans culpa*).

If this indeed is the situation at Common Law, that a non-lockfast movable asset located temporarily in a public place cannot conventionally be considered to be a domicile within which an offence of trespass can be said to have been committed, then perhaps the Police are indeed unable to do anything, irrespective of entreaties from the aggrieved complainant.

(*bearing in mind, of course, that the law is an ass, and (importantly), fax mentis incendium gloriae, etcetera etcetera, memo bis punitor delicatum etcetera :cpt:)
 
But the first post states also that items were taken from the car. When did that become legal? I'm asking for a friend, you understand...
 
Ermintruder said:
The implication is that there is a legal loophole within English laws covering trespass, in respect of entry into cars. This would be yet-another case for @maximus otter to make extended comment upon (magisterium pro bono et sans culpa*).
(*bearing in mind, of course, that the law is an ass, and (importantly), fax mentis incendium gloriae, etcetera etcetera, memo bis punitor delicatum etcetera :cpt:)
Click to expand...

Well, normally de minimis non curat lex, but I thought I'd read the item. My thoughts:

Whatever the reality, if I'd attended that incident it could have been a "Lock 'em up then look it up" job.

I can only say that we are not getting the full, accurate story here. The fact that the car owner states that he saw a spoofer/replicator in the suspect's hand would indicate that a simple arrest for the offence of going equipped for theft under s.25 Theft Act 1968 would have been in order: "A person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft..."

We've dipped out with another useful offence, that of vehicle interference (s.9 Criminal Attempts Act 1981), as that has to be committed with a view to stealing the vehicle or something from it.

The article says that the car owner had had items stolen from the vehicle some time ago, but he didn't link these two suspects specifically with those thefts. Once again, if I'd attended I'd have been happy to arrest these two on suspicion of those historical thefts, or of being in the process of committing a new offence.

There's the matter of the cannabis, obviously, but that is so close to being decriminalised that it's barely worth bothering about these days; a real "dollar collar".

There'd even be the old fallback of using the Common Law power of arrest for Breach of the Peace.

Short answer: There's a wrongety here somewhere, as my dear old Scots mum used to say. There were plenty of powers to use if these two had needed arresting. I can only assume that large chunks of context are missing.

maximus otter
 
Ermintruder said:
I've a vague recollection that Police and other Authorised Bodies with constabulary powers eg UKBA are able to enter mobile homes/ caravans/ motorhomes/ tents etc without a warrant, and with proportionate force/ presumed invitation.​

This isn't strictly relevant but it is fortean - I was watching "Being Human" the other day (it's about a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost that share a flat. it's not even a hundredth as cheesy as it sounds, it's very good). You know of course that a vampire can't come into your house unless you invite them in. But there was a bit that included a caravan, and someone humorously noted that vampires can enter caravans without permission, though they didn't know why - I guess you've probably provided me with the reasoning behind that bit of the script :)
 
Eponastill said:
I guess you've probably provided me with the reasoning behind that bit of the script :)
Click to expand...
Well, a vampire with powers of constable would be an extremely-scary prospect (and although the Police might feel your collar, they are unlikely to bite you on the neck- usually).
 
Ermintruder said:
... I'm unfamiliar with certain chunks of English law, but I've a vague recollection that Police and other Authorised Bodies with constabulary powers eg UKBA are able to enter mobile homes/ caravans/ motorhomes/ tents etc without a warrant, and with proportionate force/ presumed invitation. This would be yet-another case for @maximus otter to make extended comment upon (magisterium pro bono et sans culpa*).

If this indeed is the situation at Common Law, that a non-lockfast movable asset located temporarily in a public place cannot conventionally be considered to be a domicile within which an offence of trespass can be said to have been committed, then perhaps the Police are indeed unable to do anything, irrespective of entreaties from the aggrieved complainant. ...
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the legal context may be in the UK, but in the US ...

Motor vehicles (generally speaking ... ) are personal property rather than real property, and searching your car is more akin (legally) to searching your briefcase than searching your house.

In a traffic stop, an officer of the law may not search your vehicle without your express permission or invoking 'probable cause' (e.g., seeing drugs or a gun lying in plain sight).

In this case the vehicle was in effect a 'crime scene' itself, and I have no idea how that would affect the logic of what could or couldn't be done in the US context.
 
If they persisted in this and the police would not do something I would have a few mates round
for a bottle or two and when they turned up would explant to them in a way even they could understand why it would
not be a good idea to do it again.

:comphit:
 
RaM said:
If they persisted in this and the police would not do something I would have a few mates round
for a bottle or two and when they turned up would explant to them in a way even they could understand why it would
not be a good idea to do it again.

:comphit:
Click to expand...
You could easily get the police to do something. Call the police and say there are people in your car protesting for free speech and democracy. They'll be there in 3 minutes flat.
 
Mythopoeika said:
You could easily get the police to do something. Call the police and say there are people in your car protesting for free speech and democracy. They'll be there in 3 minutes flat.
Click to expand...

This whole thing is really bizarre. I suspect there is more to it. How could the police ignore what are obviously criminal acts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
Me to there must be something other that what we are told going on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top