Picking the lock of a wheel clamp

Shield

I can't seem to find anything solid on this, so if anyone is able to enlighten me, I'd be ever so enlightened.

Suppose you just returned to your car and it's clamped. We all know that you're not allowed to drill the lock or grind it off with a trusty angle grinder, lest you get arrested for criminal damage.

What if you happen to be very good at picking locks, and you also happen to have your lock picks in the car, as it's your favourite hobby? Is there a law, or an interpretation, that prevents you from picking said lock, removing said clamp, and cordially ensuring they find their way back to their rightful owners, without ever having paid the release fee?

From the video below, it would seem that the locks the DVLA use here in NI are quite easy to open:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbG5YOtEvps

Steve

Its Friday and I can't be bothered reading it, clamping act 2015:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/13/enacted/en/pdf

Had a glance and nothing specific.

intheclouds

Legal to do so on private property, not legal on public road.

Losty Dublin

If it's a street clamp that you remove then you are liable for a parking fine and not a release fee as such.

Part Five has mention on removing of clamps by unauthorised persons.

aphex™

Somebody told me the Dublin City ones are easy to open.

Carrying lock picks is illegal though, isn't it? Does that include carrying one in your car?

L1011

Clamping act is still uncommenced I believe

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Shield wrote: »

IWhat if you happen to be very good at picking locks, and you also happen to have your lock picks in the car, as it's your favourite hobby? Is there a law, or an interpretation, that prevents you from picking said lock, removing said clamp, and cordially ensuring they find their way back to their rightful owners, without ever having paid the release fee?

Yes there is a law preventing you doing just dat.

Removing a clamp (even without causing any damage) is criminal damage.

GM228

aphex™ wrote: »

Carrying lock picks is illegal though, isn't it? Does that include carrying one in your car?

Read this:-


http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056401910/1

Tigger

GM228 wrote: »

It might sound misleading, but removing a clamp without actually causing any damage is criminal damage!

What If I lift the car is that illegal

GM228

Tigger wrote: »

What If I lift the car is that illegal

However you do it is irrelevant, once you remove the clamp from your car it's criminal damage.

Shield

Could I ask you to cite that please? Or is it case law? Struggling to see how it could be argued so. Thanks.

GM228 wrote: »

However you do it is irrelevant, once you remove the clamp from your car it's criminal damage.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Shield wrote: »

Could I ask you to cite that please? Or is it case law? Struggling to see how it could be argued so. Thanks.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

How is it criminal damage if you have not damaged any part of it?

You don't have to actually "damage" anything to be liable for criminal damage.

By removing the clamp you are preventing or impairing it's operation as per the Criminal Damage Act 1991.

"damage” includes—

(a) in relation to property other than data (but including a storage medium in which data are kept), to destroy, deface, dismantle or, whether temporarily or otherwise, render inoperable or unfit for use or prevent or impair the operation of,

Decent Skin

GM228 wrote: »

You don't have to actually "damage" anything to be liable for criminal damage.

By removing the clamp you are preventing or impairing it's operation as per the Criminal Damage Act 1991.

No you're not.

That wording would apply to "putting it out of action" for its intended use.

You won't have done this, as the owner could pick it up and use it immediately. You haven't put it out of use, you've merely moved it.

The same would apply to a bollard or bicycle blocking your driveway; moving it carefully so that it can still be used afterwards is not "criminal damage", whereas damaging it while doing so is.

lifeandtimes

Shield wrote: »

Could I ask you to cite that please? Or is it case law? Struggling to see how it could be argued so. Thanks.

What if you remove the axel with both wheels and put a new on and this in turn leaves the clamp on the wheel,I'm sure it would cost more than the fine but I'm finding this thread fun and want to know

GM228

Decent Skin wrote: »

No you're not.

That wording would apply to "putting it out of action" for its intended use.

You won't have done this, as the owner could pick it up and use it immediately. You haven't put it out of use, you've merely moved it.

The same would apply to a bollard or bicycle blocking your driveway; moving it carefully so that it can still be used afterwards is not "criminal damage", whereas damaging it while doing so is.

I suppose it's something which hasn't been tested to the best of my knowledge, only a court could decide the interpretation.

But going by the act it's illegal to "damage" property, part of the damage interpretation is to prevent the operation (even temporarily) of the property, noting says your have to actually cause any physical damage. So in other words it's illegal to prevent the operation of the property.

By removing the wheel clamp you are preventing it from operating - i.e immobilising a vehicle.

You see where I'm going, damage dosn't necessarily mean physical damage.

lifeandtimes

GM228 wrote: »

I suppose it's something which hasn't been tested to the best of my knowledge, only a court could decide the interpretation.

But going by the act it's illegal to "damage" property, part of the damage interpretation is to prevent the operation (even temporarily) of the property, noting says your have to actually cause any physical damage. So in other words it's illegal to prevent the operation of the property.

By removing the wheel clamp you are preventing it from operating - i.e immobilising a vehicle.

You see where I'm going.

Yes but by removing the car then removing the axel with wheel steel attached then the clamp is still fulfilling it's duty,wouldn't it?

Decent Skin

GM228 wrote: »

I suppose it's something which hasn't been tested to the best of my knowledge, only a court could decide the interpretation.

But going by the act it's illegal to "damage" property, part of the damage interpretation is to prevent the operation (even temporarily) of the property, noting says your have to actually cause any physical damage. So in other words it's illegal to prevent the operation of the property.

By removing the wheel clamp you are preventing it from operating - i.e immobilising a vehicle.

You see where I'm going, damage dosn't necessarily mean physical damage.

I can, and I disagree.

The "damage" aspect implies that the "temporary operation" phrase refers to future use, and that phrase is a cover to ensure that something that's fixable is still within the law.

No fix required if you don't damage it.

GM228

Decent Skin wrote: »

I can, and I disagree.

The "damage" aspect implies that the "temporary operation" phrase refers to future use, and that phrase is a cover to ensure that something that's fixable is still within the law.

No fix required if you don't damage it.

You don't have to damage it in the common sense as in cause physical damage.

There have been test cases in the UK in relation to "damage", I read some of them before but can't find the relevant cases. Damage dosn't have to be physical damage.

I did however find this in relation to general UK criminal damage case law which sums it up:-

In law the term ‘damage’ includes not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness. Various court rulings have held that any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the law and where interference with property amounts to an impairment to the value or the usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established.

By removing the clamp without damaging it you temporary impair it's usefulness on your vehicle, thus establishing damage. That was the test in the UK case law.

When you think of it based on the international in the Act it makes perfect sense. Obviously we have different opinions but until there is relevant Irish case law we won't get a definate answer on this one.

I suppose it's fairer to say it could be as opposed to would be criminal damage.

Decent Skin

GM228 wrote: »

You don't have to damage it in the common sense as in cause physical damage.

There have been test cases in the UK in relation to "damage", I read some of them before but can't find the relevant cases. Damage dosn't have to be physical damage.

I did however find this in relation to general UK criminal damage case law which sums it up:-



By removing the clamp without damaging it you temporary impair it's usefulness on your vehicle, thus establishing damage. That was the test in the UK case law.

When you think of it based on the international in the Act it makes perfect sense. Obviously we have different opinions but until there is relevant Irish case law we won't get a definate answer on this one.

I still reckon that the term includes the word "damage" for a reason, and that the phrase is intended to refer to preventing potential future use.

It wouldn't stop someone trying it as a defence mind; they'll grasp at any straws to win a case.

Edit: in fact, if you take your definition, you could argue that they are criminally damaging your car, as they are temporarily preventing its current use.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I don't know if a District judge would follow a UK precedent.

No UK or non jurisdictional ruling is precedent to our legal system, they are however persuasive.

Steve

GM228 wrote: »

No UK or non jurisdictional ruling is precedent to our legal system, they are however persuasive.

Despite our inherited Victorian laws... :P

GM228

Decent Skin wrote: »

Edit: in fact, if you take your definition, you could argue that they are criminally damaging your car, as they are temporarily preventing its current use.

Not if they lawfully put it there it wouldn't be criminal damage.

And I suppose that's where can issue could arise in relation to private clampers?

GM228

Steve wrote: »

Despite our inherited Victorian laws... :P

Pre 1922 UK rulings are precedent.

foxatron

GM228 wrote:

Removing a clamp (even without causing any damage) is criminal damage.

How can it be criminal damage if its not damaged? If the clampers put on a clamp and never locked the padlock and you simply took it off are you saying you could be done for criminal damage.

Decent Skin

GM228 wrote: »

Not if they lawfully put it there it wouldn't be criminal damage.

And I suppose that's where can issue could arise in relation to private clampers?

That one always bugs me - if it's illegal to park somewhere then it's surely illegal to interfere with a car so that it stays there longer than intended ?

At the very least it's astonishingly counterproductive.

I do think that if someone parks illegally (double yellow or disabled space) that that's their tough, but there's no way that someone should be allowed tamper with someone else's car because of an expired car park ticket or similar. They're not causing an obstruction.

TopTec

Looking closely at the lock video it appears to be a practice lock that has been picked so many times the pins have been worn down to stumps. It's more 'raked' than picked and the barrel looks so loose you could open it with a 6 inch nail and a chocolate finger!!

TT

hullaballoo

GM228 wrote: »

You don't have to damage it in the common sense as in cause physical damage.

There have been test cases in the UK in relation to "damage", I read some of them before but can't find the relevant cases. Damage dosn't have to be physical damage.

I did however find this in relation to general UK criminal damage case law which sums it up:-



By removing the clamp without damaging it you temporary impair it's usefulness on your vehicle, thus establishing damage. That was the test in the UK case law.

When you think of it based on the international in the Act it makes perfect sense. Obviously we have different opinions but until there is relevant Irish case law we won't get a definate answer on this one.

I suppose it's fairer to say it could be as opposed to would be criminal damage.

On the basis of this interpretation, there is some doubt as to whether carefully removing a clamp without damaging it is criminal damage (it isn't, imo), there is no doubt that clamping a car is criminal damage!

Galway K9

Hi,

Was told by guards before that its a civil matter so they have to bring you to court. Which is a waste of time.

Don't have them see you doing it CCTV, they won't even bother. I've taken off 6 clamps, some angle grinder, some slip off wheel.

You will be fine but not sure bout lock picks. I actually had a clamper pay metal repair to collect his clamp I left in to get repaired. Lol

Pro Hoc Vice

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/18/emmabrockes

Pat Mustard

See section 101B(7)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as inserted by section 9 of Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act 1987:

A person who, without being authorised to do so under this section, removes or attempts to remove from a vehicle an immobilisation device fixed to it under this section, shall be guilty of an offence.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Riesen_Meal

Pat Mustard wrote: »

See section 101B(7)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as inserted by section 9 of Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act 1987:

It's an odd one this, I was clamped a while ago in Dublin, was having a terrible day of things and it was the icing on the cake getting clamped!

I was on the phone to my workmate telling him what had happened and the type of rotten day in work I had, when low and behold a lad appeared from a house nearby, told me he heard me on the phone, and the rotten day I had and offered to remove the clamp!

Turns out the chap was a locksmith on his day off - he proceeded to tell me he heard me on the phone to my friend and normally he wouldn't take action for the other cars on his street but decided to help me.

Then he explained that it was illegal for him to actually take the clamp off it himself, I would have to do it, fair enough I said but another lad who appeared watching us as the lock removal was going on, starting taking it off right in front of me...

Anyway, long story short, I was talking to a clamper a few weeks later and explained to him what happened, and would I hear anything of it - he told me I won't hear anything about it, but if I ever get caught illegal parking even for a ticket that the car will be straight up impounded...

Whether that last part was nonsense I don't know, it's about a year on from it and I learned my lesson....

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Riesen_Meal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Nonsense the last part as the car could have been sold to a new owner that would have no idea as to your past antics.

Never even crossed my mind!

Good thinking Fred...

Discodog

If you were prosecuted surely you could just say that the clamp can't of been locked properly as it came apart when you touched it. Unless they have CCTV how could they prove that the lock was picked ?

Pat Mustard

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Spot on.

dar100

If they don't get the clamp back, there is no evidence of a crime occurring

Pro Hoc Vice

dar100 wrote: »

If they don't get the clamp back, there is no evidence of a crime occurring

That could then be theft rather than criminal damage.

K.Flyer

Or you could take out your clamped frustration on... erm.. your car!
Like this.. :rolleyes: :pac:

dar100

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That could then be theft rather than criminal damage.

But there is no evidence of a crime

GM228

dar100 wrote: »

But there is no evidence of a crime

Evidence could be CCTV, witnesses etc.

If there's none of that then fair enough nothing can be done.

dar100

GM228 wrote: »

Evidence could be CCTV, witnesses etc.

If there's none of that then fair enough nothing can be done.

exactly, which was my first point

Pro Hoc Vice

dar100 wrote: »

But there is no evidence of a crime

Have you ever watched a real district court criminal trial, the evidence could be someone seeing the accused picking up the clamp, it could be the accused admitting something in interview, (you would be surprised what people admit) it could be CCTV evidence. Just because the clamp is missing does not mean evidence will not exist.

Pro Hoc Vice

dar100 wrote: »

[/B]
exactly, which was my first point

No the point was with out the clamp there is no evidence. That may or may not be right and after an investigation including interview much could turn up.

dar100

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Have you ever watched a real district court criminal trial, the evidence could be someone seeing the accused picking up the clamp, it could be the accused admitting something in interview, (you would be surprised what people admit) it could be CCTV evidence. Just because the clamp is missing does not mean evidence will not exist.

You seem to misrepresent want I am saying... with out the clamp, there is no evidence that an individual in question removed the clamp. Just like without a body there is no concrete evidence of a murder taking place.

CCTV or admissions, or a witness, are external evidence. I'm solely speaking about the lack a a present clamp
FYI trials don't happen in the district court.

hullaballoo

dar100 wrote: »

You seem to misrepresent want I am saying... with out the clamp, there is no evidence that an individual in question removed the clamp. Just like without a body there is no concrete evidence of a murder taking place.

CCTV or admissions, or a witness, are external evidence. I'm solely speaking about the lack a a present clamp
FYI trials don't happen in the district court.

This is real life, not a concocted pseudo-legal television drama.

Of course you can prove a murder without a body.

FYI, hundreds of trials take place in the district court on a daily basis.

Pro Hoc Vice

dar100 wrote: »

You seem to misrepresent want I am saying... with out the clamp, there is no evidence that an individual in question removed the clamp. Just like without a body there is no concrete evidence of a murder taking place.

CCTV or admissions, or a witness, are external evidence. I'm solely speaking about the lack a a present clamp
FYI trials don't happen in the district court.

Without the clamp it will be difficult but not impossible as other evidence might exist.

No trials in DC? Really jury trials don't happen in DC but trials do

http://courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/87e92c08919cb0f180256d2b0046a092?OpenDocument

dar100

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Without the clamp it will be difficult but not impossible as other evidence might exist.

No trials in DC? Really jury trials don't happen in DC but trials do

http://courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/87e92c08919cb0f180256d2b0046a092?OpenDocument

Trials are with juries, and juries don't sit in DC