ChatterBank2 mins ago
Penalties for theft
9 Answers
I have a (fictional) situation where someone is accused of stealing something valuable from their place of work. One item is found in their room (it's a live-in job) and other items which have previously disappeared are not found. The person is arrested, accused with just this one theft, taken to a police station, refuses duty solicitor, held overnight then bailed by a family member at a magistrates' court in the morning. The accuser shortly afterwards goes to the police and asks for the charges to be dropped. The perpetrator (someone else, of course) is later found.
Is this situation feasible? I believe the CPS are responsible for deciding whether or not to pursue charges - how would they react to a request to drop them, or would they be involved at all at this stage?
All advice on the wrongs and rights of my scenario would be gratefully received.
Is this situation feasible? I believe the CPS are responsible for deciding whether or not to pursue charges - how would they react to a request to drop them, or would they be involved at all at this stage?
All advice on the wrongs and rights of my scenario would be gratefully received.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bambiagain. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ok, although this person doesn't have two pennies to rub together. If there is no other evidence than the item being in their room, with a good explanation for finger prints, how likely do you think it would be that the case would be pursued, and what would they be looking at as a penalty? I've tried to look online, but not found anything really helpful.
You haven't explained how it was known that the items were in their room. If found by the police, how? There's no way that they could get a warrant to search it without some other reason. If found by someone else, it's unlikely that the police would even be interested in charging them in the first place.
If the person 'lived in' a room in the same house where they worked then an item being found in their room would not be theft, it would not have been removed from the house, just moved to another place in the house . No more theft than removing the item from the lounge and putting it in the hallway for example. It would be theft if the person lived somewhere else and had taken the item home .
Difficult to prove in law sandyRoe, in your situation the worker could just say the reciepts were there as he wanted to check the amounts were correct and was going to put them back in the till later, same with the 'object' in the original question, the worker could claim they were cleaning or repairing it with the intention of putting it back. Suspicious but not proof of theft.
Depends what the accuser says. They might, being told the suspect's explanation why the items were in his room, say that that is entirely feasible or is correct, they now thought that the goods were not stolen and did not wish to pursue. Then the CPS would not have the suspect charged.
On the simple facts given, this might still be theft . The possession by the defendant of property which he is unlikely to have acquired or have possession of otherwise than dishonestly is sufficient.The circumstances of his acquiring the goods and the nature of them may be enough (even if no loser or owner can be identified and the source of them unknown) If, say, the man lived over a depository and a diamond necklace belonging to a depositor was found in his room, that would be prima facie evidence of theft since there was no reason why he would have it and any explanation given is at least triable as being unlikely to be plausible. Likewise, if he was above a jeweller's and it was no part of his job to have a diamond necklace in his room, for example to work on it, that would be prima facie evidence that he had stolen it.
The mere fact that a complainant does not wish the case to proceed is no reason in itself for it not to. The CPS will decide on the available evidence whether a case is disclosed, whether it is reasonably likely to result in a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to proceed.
On the simple facts given, this might still be theft . The possession by the defendant of property which he is unlikely to have acquired or have possession of otherwise than dishonestly is sufficient.The circumstances of his acquiring the goods and the nature of them may be enough (even if no loser or owner can be identified and the source of them unknown) If, say, the man lived over a depository and a diamond necklace belonging to a depositor was found in his room, that would be prima facie evidence of theft since there was no reason why he would have it and any explanation given is at least triable as being unlikely to be plausible. Likewise, if he was above a jeweller's and it was no part of his job to have a diamond necklace in his room, for example to work on it, that would be prima facie evidence that he had stolen it.
The mere fact that a complainant does not wish the case to proceed is no reason in itself for it not to. The CPS will decide on the available evidence whether a case is disclosed, whether it is reasonably likely to result in a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to proceed.
1 to 9 of 9
