Serious - What is the legislation regarding bin lifting/sifting?

RocketDodger said:
Batfink, old horse,

A person is guilty of Theft if he:

Dishonestly
Appropriates
Property
With the intention of permanantly depriving the other of it

All of the above has to occur in ......Deep Breath.....THAT ORDER and each part of the definition has to be evidenced in order for the offence to be proved. It's like being back in f@cking training!!Taking it out to photocopy, photograph etc may be offences under the DPA, RIPA,not being a very sporting chap Act etc but certainly not theft. Christ, there are some assholes spouting it on this thread

The Theft Act is a nightmare, couple of examples from training school (as that seems to be where most of the 'informed' posts seem to belong:

Neighbour borrows a lawnmower intending to give it back. Then has a brainstorm, thinks, 'F@ck it' and sells it down the local pub. Not theft as at the the time he appropriated it there was no dishonesty or an intention to permanantly deprive= Not theft

You owe me £50 and won't cough up. Next time I'm invited into your house I have your printer away. Not theft, if I honestly believe:

A that you owe me £50
B that the printer is fair value regards what I'm owed
(Now, don't be boring, I haven't broken in, tricked my way in, nor secured entry using violence)

Might be a civil case, but not theft

There's a lot of bollocks being talked on here, not least by the t0sser who suggests that my experience is limited to being a PCSO. Not true my friend, not that I have anything against PCSOs as they, at least, seem to have a better grasp of the theft act than you do:)

Smart comment about sections 1 - 6 but, hey, what do I know, I'm just on automatic coz a charge sheet reads that you are 'contrary to Sections 1 - 5 Theft Act 1968' But, you know that don't you, or do you ???wanker
Click to expand...

Isn't it a little more complicated than that... there is a complexity regarding 'Appropriation'..?

And...

Then of course there is also 'making off without payment' (1978)

Just a discussion point Rocket...
 
Last edited:
Hi Carl,

No mate, it's A LOT more complicated that, every part of the definition of theft has been tried and tested to eemmph degree in the appeal courts and there is reams and reams on it by way of 'case stated'

Making off without payment.. Theft Act 1978 (not '68) if memory serves me correctly, and yes, a totally different can of worms!!
 
No the Other North,

'Otherwise, you run the risk of the material you acquired and any lines of enquiry emanating as a consequence of it being excluded from judicial proceedings under S76 PACE, the unfairness principle'

Bullshit

S76 PACE ' Deals purely with confessions!'

in consequence of anything said or done liable, under the circumstances to render unreliable, any confession.....'(not what you've grabbed out of a bin)

Didn't have to Google it, it's burned into my brain, but maybe you should have

What the old bill use (the grown up ones anyway) is a combination of S76 and S78:

S78 PACE


Exclusion of unfair evidence.
(1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

The leading authority is Kuruma v. The Queen [1955] A.C. 197 in which it was contended that evidence illegally obtained was inadmissible. Lord Goddard rejected this contention, saying:—
"the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained"

Basically, you can lie to the defendant (with the agreement of the SIO, of course) This of course, is a gross breach of S76 of PACE. However if, as a result of you lying to him, you obtain evidence (other than a confession) it MAY be ruled admissable in a court of law. The confession will probably be ruled inadmissable

EG: Shit stabs somebody and kills him at his home. I lie to said shit in interview (when all other lines of enquiry have been exhausted) and tell him I have DNA and prints recovered from the scene which match his. (Breach of S76) He cries a lot (like they do) and then coughs (eventuallly) where he disposed of the murder weapon. This is recovered. His prints, DNA and the victims DNA are recovered from the weapon. Bingo! The confession may be ruled inadmissable but the physical evidence recovered as a result of that confession may not be.

S78 PACE as above then comes into play in court. It doesn't always work but it does work.

Guys, if you are going to 'Talk the talk' on here, at least get it right. There are any number of members on here who, quite reasonably, expect people who post to know what they're talking about and provide a professional perspective. If you don't, and the last few posts on this thread are a perfect example, then shut the **** up.
 
Last edited:
Bu88er, the buns are on me. One-digit error in my typing, I should have proof-read it on paper prior to submission. As an L2 interviewer, I concur in principle with the example given.

Yes, Rocket-Dodger, you are correct about S76 - S78. Aaaand....... relax.
 
Sorry NtoN, thought that was you meant, but you do get some spanners on here who know as much about criminal law as I do about being friggin astronaut

Houston, we have a problem.....:):)


Stay safe

RD
 
Just to stir it up a bit (as if any more were needed) is there any case law directly involving this?

Surely that would provide a definitive answer? Better than anyones interpretation - however well informed/trained/experiencedqualified/intentioned they may be....

just a thought
 
OK Dannyboy, here we go....

BELONGING TO ANOTHER

Williams v Phillips (1957) 41 Cr App R 5.
A householder put refuse out for collection by the local authority refuse workers. It was held by the Divisional Court that such refuse remained property belonging to the householder until collected, whereupon property passed to the local authority. Hence, refuse workers helping themselves to such property could be convicted of theft, on the basis that the property never became ownerless.

2. PROPERTY

Oxford v Moss [1979] Crim LR 119.
A student borrowed an advance copy of an examination paper, copied the questions and then returned the paper. The Divisional Court held that he was not guilty of theft on the basis that information could not be stolen. Clearly the paper on which the exam questions were typed was property belonging to Liverpool University, but there was no evidence that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the University of it.

So, it would appear that if you steal something 'tangible' from a bin you commit theft.

However,

It would also appear that you cannot steal information as in Oxford v Moss. So, if you have no intention of keeping any tangible property taken from the bin, and in fact, you return the property, it would appear highly unlikely that you will be convicted of theft. The fact that you may have copied / photographed information is not relevant as it is cannot be stolen under the Act

I rest my case M'Lud:)
 
Last edited:
Cheers Rocket Dodger

CM asked a very good and relevant question, as ever, you've bent over backwards to answer it with the facts, that's what I like about this place, very good reading mate
 
Well we seem to have arrived at a decision??

Really good debate on this one, 68 posts and I've enjoyed the banter along the way :)

Nice one


Go steady


Paul
 
Good post RocketDodger, well done.

A bit of hard facts works wonders - far better than all the head pecking and chest beating.

Does the case for the prosecution have any contrary evidence?
 
Mr50 said:
Just hope they don't lift you under the Vagrancy Act!

Light the paper and stand back!!:D
Click to expand...

What's this pick on the old geezer day ?

I don't know if any of you have noticed,
I have been trying to be good lately.
Understanding, caring, nurturing, tollerant, encouraging even.:rolleyes:
But there's only so much a man, with a lead filled cosh can take.:mad:
 
dannyboy489 said:
You said it not us. I don't care how ancient you are I was just picking on your fashion sense - or lack there of.....



What's that for? Chocking the wheels on your zimmer......?
Click to expand...


Danny, danny, danny, the innocense of youth just signs through, bless you son.
My fashion sense is monitored closely by 3 women in my household.
No going out in pipe and slippers for this ol' git.
Tweed in the winter, and cotton in the summers.
A quintessentially English man, at all times,
You stick to your string vest and Burberry chav logo uniform.
Standards danny, standards. :eek:

The 'lead cosh' is some times referred to as a 'priest'. :rolleyes:
As it is often used to deliver the 'last (holy) orders', well maybe not that holy,
but I promise to give you a 'blessing' if you wish. Danny :p:p

ps. Bin lift successful in every way and bags back on street corner by 05.00.

Photo confirmation next, to be completed by Saturday.
Bit of team effort for this one.
 
Back
Top