Festive Drinks Quiz - 5 January
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
What The Cps Do..
37 Answers
In case you were wondering !
Some men have been charged in connection with taking discarded food from a skip :
http://
Don't know why the police bothered with the Vagrancy Act 1824. It is established law that property left in, say, a dustbin, for collection is not without an owner any more, nor is it abandoned (or 'res derelicta' as the lawyers would have it).
But do you think prosecuting this is a waste of time and money ?
Some men have been charged in connection with taking discarded food from a skip :
http://
Don't know why the police bothered with the Vagrancy Act 1824. It is established law that property left in, say, a dustbin, for collection is not without an owner any more, nor is it abandoned (or 'res derelicta' as the lawyers would have it).
But do you think prosecuting this is a waste of time and money ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. 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.
The woodentops...sorry, 'the lay bench', might find these men guilty but they would, I hope, be acquitted on appeal to the Crown Court (a judge and two independent magistrates). A professional magistrate (Deputy Judge) would acquit, I think. Any advocate would think the chances of acquittal were good. It is, in the end, a question of what these men believed, but only a very foolish defendant would say that he thought it was wrong to do what they did or, even worse with a court, that they were making a protest against the evils of society.
-- answer removed --
Yes, mrs o, only some of the Vagrancy Act remains in force; the 'sus' law, section 4 went some years ago; but I do hope my favourite bit is still extant. It provided that 'a petty chapman wandering abroad' committed an offence thereunder. I spent years hoping for this to be invoked against somebody, but was disappointed. It was up there with offences against the Rag Flock Act in my dashed hopes !
The Act was passed because of a lot of nuisance caused by vagrancy by soldiers and sailors returning from the Napoleonic wars and who failed to find work.
The Act was passed because of a lot of nuisance caused by vagrancy by soldiers and sailors returning from the Napoleonic wars and who failed to find work.
'Don't know why the police bothered with the Vagrancy Act 1824'
The Vagrancy Act is commonly used by police as it is currently and probably the best source of criminal law to deal with trespassers (usually civil) found on enclosed premises for unlawful purposes. It would appear the CPS are not actually interested in the theft of the food in this case.
The Vagrancy Act is commonly used by police as it is currently and probably the best source of criminal law to deal with trespassers (usually civil) found on enclosed premises for unlawful purposes. It would appear the CPS are not actually interested in the theft of the food in this case.
The advantage is that it is a purely summary offence, orderlimit. The CPS won't charge theft because the defendants could go for trial by jury, with greater expense and, being cynical, a greater chance of acquittal. The CPS still have the problem that the unlawful purpose is theft, to prove which they have to prove that the defendants were intending dishonesty.
Had a skip outside a place we were doing up in Nottingham once. It was in a terrace road so out on the street.
At once point one mornign it became like a swap shop. One persone would dump something in it 2 mins later someone else would take it out.
Me and my mate left them to it as it was tremendous value for money.
Generally though, it is a problem people putting stuff in rather than them taking it out. I must admit I have no problem with anyone taking stuff from my skip or bin so long as they dont make a mess pulling it out.
This case shows how petty and ridiculous plod/councils can be.
At once point one mornign it became like a swap shop. One persone would dump something in it 2 mins later someone else would take it out.
Me and my mate left them to it as it was tremendous value for money.
Generally though, it is a problem people putting stuff in rather than them taking it out. I must admit I have no problem with anyone taking stuff from my skip or bin so long as they dont make a mess pulling it out.
This case shows how petty and ridiculous plod/councils can be.
That wouldn't be a tactical advantage the police would need to consider in such a situation Fred.
In this particular case, it states that a member of the public called the police to report three men climbing over a wall at the back of Iceland and police find three people leaving the area in possession of food etc.
The initial arrest for burglary was reasonable (arrest necessary) and later charged under the Vagrancy Act, no doubt having heard that the food was 'taken' from the waste skip for personal consumption and therefore not in the public interest to prosecute for that part. Also, in accordance with the victim led policing approach, Iceland would have made a formal complaint and their views would have been considered in the decision making process. (This may be an ongoing and escalating problem for them in the area).
The issue here is one of trespassing on enclosed commercial premises for unlawful purposes, a big problem for businesses, but the guardian have put their usual anti-police slant on the story to make it out to be something else.
In this particular case, it states that a member of the public called the police to report three men climbing over a wall at the back of Iceland and police find three people leaving the area in possession of food etc.
The initial arrest for burglary was reasonable (arrest necessary) and later charged under the Vagrancy Act, no doubt having heard that the food was 'taken' from the waste skip for personal consumption and therefore not in the public interest to prosecute for that part. Also, in accordance with the victim led policing approach, Iceland would have made a formal complaint and their views would have been considered in the decision making process. (This may be an ongoing and escalating problem for them in the area).
The issue here is one of trespassing on enclosed commercial premises for unlawful purposes, a big problem for businesses, but the guardian have put their usual anti-police slant on the story to make it out to be something else.
Icelands Chief Exec, does not agree with the prosecution Fred, see attached:
http://
http://
CPS have dropped the prosecution. Its now "not in the public interest, apparently.
http://
http://
I am not entirely sure that this is the same case but if it is, then common sense has prevailed ::::
http://
http://
OL, you sound like a police officer :) "These people trespassing on commercial premises are a nuisance. Let's nick 'em for something " That rather ignores the fact that the something is intent to steal, which involves dishonesty, which they can't prove. You find the Vagrancy Act useful to stop this nuisance.
Well, the Vagrancy Act was well suited to that thinking. The old s4 was " suspected person loitering with intent to steal". Police would see a man try a car door handle; 'try' meaning 'touch'. That made him 'a suspected person'. When he touched a second door handle he became a suspected person 'with intent' and was nicked, which he couldn't have been for touching just one handle. I reality, the person was arrested for that well known offence of being "up to no good in the opinion of the officer"; the evidence seemed to be, or was, often invented for convenience..There was no 'attempt to steal' or 'going equipped to steal' needed.
Unfortunately, in this case, the act of appropriating was complete. So it was either theft or nothing. But it wasn't theft, because there was no dishonesty. So the tactic of using the Vagrancy Act went out of the window. That's why 'a senior' CPS lawyer abandoned the prosecution. Note that it was the police, not the CPS who decided to charge in the first case. Very embarrassing all round.
Well, the Vagrancy Act was well suited to that thinking. The old s4 was " suspected person loitering with intent to steal". Police would see a man try a car door handle; 'try' meaning 'touch'. That made him 'a suspected person'. When he touched a second door handle he became a suspected person 'with intent' and was nicked, which he couldn't have been for touching just one handle. I reality, the person was arrested for that well known offence of being "up to no good in the opinion of the officer"; the evidence seemed to be, or was, often invented for convenience..There was no 'attempt to steal' or 'going equipped to steal' needed.
Unfortunately, in this case, the act of appropriating was complete. So it was either theft or nothing. But it wasn't theft, because there was no dishonesty. So the tactic of using the Vagrancy Act went out of the window. That's why 'a senior' CPS lawyer abandoned the prosecution. Note that it was the police, not the CPS who decided to charge in the first case. Very embarrassing all round.
Yes, I later saw that it was the Met's decision to charge Fred, after reading the link posted by LG, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more to this case than reported hence a charge that wouldn't normally go anywhere (personally, I do not agree with prosecuting people for taking discarded foods for personal consumption, although I agree with positive action, detain and questioning etc).
'You find the Vagrancy Act useful to stop this nuisance'.
Useful in preventing and investigating crime. Trespass Laws need to be reviewed here in the UK. It is bizarre that law enforcement has to rely on acts of law that were used to deal with problems, as you stated, after the Napoleonic wars.
'You find the Vagrancy Act useful to stop this nuisance'.
Useful in preventing and investigating crime. Trespass Laws need to be reviewed here in the UK. It is bizarre that law enforcement has to rely on acts of law that were used to deal with problems, as you stated, after the Napoleonic wars.
