Theft or Unauthorised Taking?

FakeNews

Can anybody tell me if someone simply takes a car from a car park or a driveway while the car is running and the owner is not around does this offence fall under the Theft and Fraud Offences Act or the Road Traffic Act?

Trying to settle a discussion with my friend!

lifeandtimes

4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

Pretty straight forward there

But in your scenario more details would be needed, does the person taking the car know the owner in anyway

Lmklad

lifeandtimes wrote: »

4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

Pretty straight forward there

But in your scenario more details would be needed, does the person taking the car know the owner in anyway

Section 112 RTA is specifically designed for this and is the better piece of law.

112.—(1) A person shall not use or take possession of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority

NUTLEY BOY

FakeNews wrote: »

Can anybody tell me if someone simply takes a car from a car park or a driveway while the car is running and the owner is not around does this offence fall under the Theft and Fraud Offences Act or the Road Traffic Act?

Trying to settle a discussion with my friend!

Under S.112. RTA 1961 the offence is that of taking a vehicle without authority. S. 112.1 provides that a person shall not use or take possession of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority.

There is a defence if the purloiner had reasonable grounds for believing that he had lawful authority for doing that act.

Where the offence of unauthorised taking might be distinguished conceptually from theft is that there is no mention in S.112 of any intention to deprive the owner of the vehicle of their property permanently.

Kevin3

The short answer is both are correct in that you could use either to prosecute the offence.

The Road Traffic Act was brought in at a time when the Larceny Act was in force for theft offences. Theft under that act required the intent of the person to permanently deprive the owner of the property. This led to an issue where a person taking a car for a joyride for a period of time and abandoning it could argue that they had no intention of permanently depriving the owner of it. This led to the introduction of the offence of taking a vehicle without the owner's consent under the Road Traffic Act.

The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 repealed the old Larceny act and now allows temporary depriving under theft

(5) In this section—

“depriving” means temporarily or permanently depriving.

This means that section 112 of the Road Traffic is probably largely unnecessary but it's still regularily amended and used, probably because of the assumption that you can't use section 4 of the theft act.

Lmklad

Kevin3 wrote: »

The short answer is both are correct in that you could use either to prosecute the offence.

The Road Traffic Act was brought in at a time when the Larceny Act was in force for theft offences. Theft under that act required the intent of the person to permanently deprive the owner of the property. This led to an issue where a person taking a car for a joyride for a period of time and abandoning it could argue that they had no intention of permanently depriving the owner of it. This led to the introduction of the offence of taking a vehicle without the owner's consent under the Road Traffic Act.

The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 repealed the old Larceny act and now allows temporary depriving under theft

(5) In this section—

“depriving” means temporarily or permanently depriving.

This means that section 112 of the Road Traffic is probably largely unnecessary but it's still regularily amended and used, probably because of the assumption that you can't use section 4 of the theft act.

While both technically fit the situation the DPP will only run with the safest piece of legislation. Also if there is an unauthorised taking there will also be other breaches of the RTA, ie no insurance and DPP prefers grouped offences

Kevin3

Lmklad wrote: »

While both technically fit the situation the DPP will only run with the safest piece of legislation. Also if there is an unauthorised taking there will also be other breaches of the RTA, ie no insurance and DPP prefers grouped offences

Both are safe and it doesn't make a bit of difference to the DPP if offences are grouped or not.

Lmklad

Kevin3 wrote: »

Lmklad wrote: »

While both technically fit the situation the DPP will only run with the safest piece of legislation. Also if there is an unauthorised taking there will also be other breaches of the RTA, ie no insurance and DPP prefers grouped offences

Both are safe and it doesn't make a bit of difference to the DPP if offences are grouped or not.

In your opinion

Kevin3

Lmklad wrote: »

In your opinion

Of course, but also based on experience. I'm always open to correction though.

Am I coming across as abrupt?

hullaballoo

Kevin3 wrote: »

Of course, but also based on experience. I'm always open to correction though.

Am I coming across as abrupt?

No.

4ensic15

In the case of a Theft Act prosecution the defendant can elect for a Jury trial. In a S112 offence it is summary only. The DPP often doesn't want a jury trial so prosecutes summarily.

Victor

Lmklad wrote: »

Also if there is an unauthorised taking there will also be other breaches of the RTA, ie no insurance

Would this be more a case of there may also be other breaches of the RTA, e.g. family member takes vehicle with both parties having open insurance.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

In the case of a Theft Act prosecution the defendant can elect for a Jury trial. In a S112 offence it is summary only. The DPP often doesn't want a jury trial so prosecutes summarily.

This. Plus, the theft charge requires the state to prove an intent to deprive, while the taking without consent charge does not. So taking without consent is easier to prosecute.