Stolen Bike compensation

timfinnegan · 29-08-2018 10:40AM #1

Hi,

I've a question for you people.

I recently had an expensive bike stolen. i didn't have it insured so I'm out of pocket big time.

It looks likely that the criminal who stole the bike will be tried in court. If he is found guilty, do I have any entitlement to put an attachment on his wages/social welfare payment until he repays me for the price of my stolen bike?

Does anyone know how I would go about taking a civil action looking to get full compenstion for the price of my bike?

ohnonotgmail · 29-08-2018 10:59AM

You could certainly take a civil action for damages. Your chances of actually receiving any money though are very slim.

timfinnegan · 29-08-2018 11:28AM

I was thinking of taking a civil claim against the felon through the small courts and then possibly getting a weekly deduction taken out of his Social welfare payment, until I'm compensated in full

ohnonotgmail · 29-08-2018 11:31AM

timfinnegan wrote: »

I was thinking of taking a civil claim against the felon through the small courts and then possibly getting a weekly deduction taken out of his Social welfare payment, until I'm compensated in full

you cant use small claims court. that is only for actions against businesses. and you wont get a deduction from their social welfare.

seagull · 29-08-2018 11:51AM

Your best hope would be that he arrives in court with a sum to give you as compensation in the hopes that he will get a lesser punishment. Although it will probably not be worth his while for something like bike theft.

rushfan · 29-08-2018 11:57AM

timfinnegan wrote:

Does anyone know how I would go about taking a civil action looking to get full compenstion for the price of my bike?

What happened with the bike? Did he sell it on?

timfinnegan · 29-08-2018 01:01PM

Yep he sold the bike onto someone for a fraction of it's value.

He's on a Social welfare payment and will most likely be found guilty as the evidence is fairly damning. However, whilst he may get a criminal conviction to add to his lengthy collection, I feel justice would also served if he had to pay for the stolen bike out of his welfare payments. I believe this would be an effective way of dealing with the crime for the perpetrator and me the victim, whilst also acting as a deterrent.

He might be very reticent to rob a bike in broad daylight, if he had to actually recompense his victim through deductions from his welfare payments.

I'm out of pocket and no doubt, this lad will be carrying on his normal criminal trade in no time at all. Where is the deterrent?

boombang · 29-08-2018 01:04PM

Sorry to hear of the theft.

I'm really glad you raised this one OP. I know of a similar case and the judge didn't award any compo to the victim of the bike theft from the perp's social welfare (I don't think there was any request along these lines). I agree that it would be a far far better way of doing things.

rushfan · 29-08-2018 01:20PM

timfinnegan wrote:

He's on a Social welfare payment and will most likely be found guilty as the evidence is fairly damning. However, whilst he may get a criminal conviction to add to his lengthy collection, I feel justice would also served if he had to pay for the stolen bike out of his welfare payments. I believe this would be an effective way of dealing with the crime for the perpetrator and me the victim, whilst also acting as a deterrent.

Agree with this. If only.

daheff · 29-08-2018 01:23PM

Can the person who bought the bike off him be traced? If so, request he gardai to retrieve the stolen bike for you. As far as I know its an offence to handle stolen goods (whether you know or not)!

Somebody who buys stolen goods (probably knowingly) is as bad as somebody who steals.

Claw Hammer · 29-08-2018 01:27PM

The court can make an order under Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1993. I have never seen it done, however and most judges are reluctant to order it. In a small number of cases the judge makes it clear that if compensation is paid there will not be a custodial sentence. That sometimes causes the criminal (or his family) to pay up.

Victor · 29-08-2018 01:35PM

timfinnegan wrote: »

the felon

Do not use this term when in court. The person is the accused until they are found guilty in this prosecution.

The misdemeanor / felony distinction has been abolished in Ireland. Simple bike theft likely wouldn't qualify as a felony anywhere.

timfinnegan · 29-08-2018 02:20PM

daheff wrote: »

Can the person who bought the bike off him be traced? If so, request he gardai to retrieve the stolen bike for you. As far as I know its an offence to handle stolen goods (whether you know or not)!

Somebody who buys stolen goods (probably knowingly) is as bad as somebody who steals.

I believe it's unlikely that the person who purchased the bike will be traced.

I agree that people who buy off these criminals are equally culpable, as without their co-operation there would be no market for stolen bikes.

timfinnegan · 29-08-2018 02:23PM

It'll be interesting to see if compensation is offered. My gut instinct, given the history of the suspect is that the offender would rather do time than offer compensation, but I hope I'm wrong on this.

timfinnegan · 29-08-2018 02:26PM

I take your point on the terminology and of course the thief will not be called that in court until he is convicted of the crime.

BrokenArrows · 29-08-2018 04:01PM

OP youre asking a lot to be refunded here.
Even if you were lucky enough to get a weekly payment out of them you would probably be awarded something stupid like €5 a week. You would be a while waiting for full repayment. God forbid the scum would have to be put into hardship.

dhaughton99 · 29-08-2018 04:38PM

Remember the govt brought in a scheme to take money from your wages and SW a few years ago for non payment of fines etc? It has been used twice since being implemented according to Sean o’Rourke show.

timfinnegan · 29-08-2018 04:41PM

BrokenArrows wrote: »

OP youre asking a lot to be refunded here.
Even if you were lucky enough to get a weekly payment out of them you would probably be awarded something stupid like €5 a week. You would be a while waiting for full repayment. God forbid the scum would have to be put into hardship.

I believe that the best way of hitting these criminals is in the pocket. I'd be quiet happy to get €5 per week from him for the next few years. It might act as proper deterrent and make him think twice before lifting property that does not belong to him. From what I can gather the current method of justice has not got this career criminal to reform his ways.

Peregrinus · 30-08-2018 01:40AM

timfinnegan wrote: »

I believe it's unlikely that the person who purchased the bike will be traced.

I agree that people who buy off these criminals are equally culpable, as without their co-operation there would be no market for stolen bikes.

Which is why we have the crime of receiving stolen goods.

OP - yes, you can take a civil action against the offender seeking compensation for the value of the bike (plus an award of the costs you will incur in taking the civil action). And, if you get judgment, you have the usual range of enforcement options open to you, including an application for an attachment order.

Realistically, though, it would be throwing good money after bad. Judges are reluctant to make attachment orders to enforce civil judgments against people on social welfare, and your long term prospects of ever actually getting anything like the value of the bike are very much dependent on this guy getting a job, and you becoming aware that he has done so.

sexmag · 30-08-2018 10:22AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

your long term prospects of ever actually getting anything like the value of the bike are very much dependent on this guy getting a job, and you becoming aware that he has done so.

Yes i was going to say this, a get out quick for him in this if an attachment order is made is for him to get a job and have his social welfare stopped, get sacked and started again, you will then have to go through the court rigmorole again costing your further time and money and its not worth it.

If only there was other ways as its a pain in the hole petty thiefs can get away with putting a hard working joe soap out of pocket a good amount

KevinCavan · 30-08-2018 11:06PM

sexmag wrote: »

Yes i was going to say this, a get out quick for him in this if an attachment order is made is for him to get a job and have his social welfare stopped, get sacked and started again, you will then have to go through the court rigmorole again costing your further time and money and its not worth it.

If only there was other ways as its a pain in the hole petty thiefs can get away with putting a hard working joe soap out of pocket a good amount

Were they not able to track down where the stolen bike was? How was he caught, c.c.t.v.?

Peregrinus · 31-08-2018 12:59AM

sexmag wrote: »

Yes i was going to say this, a get out quick for him in this if an attachment order is made is for him to get a job and have his social welfare stopped, get sacked and started again, you will then have to go through the court rigmorole again costing your further time and money and its not worth it.

If only there was other ways as its a pain in the hole petty thiefs can get away with putting a hard working joe soap out of pocket a good amount

The bottom line here is that debts incurred through crime are not treated any differently from debts incurred not through crime. A debt's a debt, and the enforcement process and mechanisms available don't vary depending on moral judgments about how the debt was incurred.

And recovering a debt from somebody who doesn't have any money is notoriously difficult. For obvious reasons.

And crimes - particularly petty property crimes - are disproportionately committed by people who don't have any money; the two circumstances are closely connected.

Which means that getting compensation from a petty criminal is rarely easy. If would be easier if petty criminals had more money but, then, if they had more money they would be much less likely to be petty criminals.

timfinnegan · 31-08-2018 01:09PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bottom line here is that debts incurred through crime are not treated any differently from debts incurred not through crime. A debt's a debt, and the enforcement process and mechanisms available don't vary depending on moral judgments about how the debt was incurred.

And recovering a debt from somebody who doesn't have any money is notoriously difficult. For obvious reasons.

And crimes - particularly petty property crimes - are disproportionately committed by people who don't have any money; the two circumstances are closely connected.

Which means that getting compensation from a petty criminal is rarely easy. If would be easier if petty criminals had more money but, then, if they had more money they would be much less likely to be petty criminals.

I don't believe that the current system of justice for dealing with petty thieves or crime in general works effectively.

Do the sentences handed out act as a deterrent?

From the evidence that I can see in my own particular case, the suspect appears to be unconcerned with a short custodial sentence. He has served these previously and yet returns routinely to his old ways of petty crime.

Does the victim get compensated?

In a word, No.

The suspect will get free legal, costing the state thousands of euros from taxpayers like myself.

What happens when he gets out from his next short custodial sentence?

I'd imagine that the criminal will return to his old ways and continue to rob hundreds of bikes from people who have to graft for a living.

It seems that the current methodology we use to tackle petty crime is not fit for purpose. The criminal continues to rob, the law profession will get their free legal aid money and the victims will continue to get robbed, in addition to paying their taxes to support this whole farce.

4ensic15 · 31-08-2018 05:52PM

timfinnegan wrote: »

I don't believe that the current system of justice for dealing with petty thieves or crime in general works effectively.

Do the sentences handed out act as a deterrent?

From the evidence that I can see in my own particular case, the suspect appears to be unconcerned with a short custodial sentence. He has served these previously and yet returns routinely to his old ways of petty crime.

Does the victim get compensated?

In a word, No.

The suspect will get free legal, costing the state thousands of euros from taxpayers like myself.

What happens when he gets out from his next short custodial sentence?

I'd imagine that the criminal will return to his old ways and continue to rob hundreds of bikes from people who have to graft for a living.

It seems that the current methodology we use to tackle petty crime is not fit for purpose. The criminal continues to rob, the law profession will get their free legal aid money and the victims will continue to get robbed, in addition to paying their taxes to support this whole farce.

Your bike was stolen and you want the culprit locked up for 30 years or so?
They have a 3 strikes and you are out in the States. there are millions in jail, bikes still get stolen and it costs the taxpayer to pay for the prisons.
You should just be more careful with any replacement bike you get.

timfinnegan · 31-08-2018 06:40PM

4ensic15 wrote: »

Your bike was stolen and you want the culprit locked up for 30 years or so?
They have a 3 strikes and you are out in the States. there are millions in jail, bikes still get stolen and it costs the taxpayer to pay for the prisons.
You should just be more careful with any replacement bike you get.

No I've a better idea. Let's pay solicitors and barristers thousands to defend the little scumbags, give them short custodial sentences for their hundreds of offences, let them rob with impunity and sod the people whose property is stolen.

Sure why change a winning formula. Maintain the status quo.

runawaybishop · 31-08-2018 06:49PM

timfinnegan wrote: »

No I've a better idea. Let's pay solicitors and barristers thousands to defend the little scumbags, give them short custodial sentences for their hundreds of offences, let them rob with impunity and sod the people whose property is stolen.

Sure why change a winning formula. Maintain the status quo.

Realistically if you tap into his dole he will probably rob more, not less. Punishments won't rehabilitate him.

Nermal · 31-08-2018 07:11PM

4ensic15 wrote: »

You should just be more careful with any replacement bike you get.

The attitude of Ireland's criminal justice system, neatly summed up.

I would gladly pay whatever taxes would be necessary to institute a three strikes law in Ireland.

boombang · 01-09-2018 09:13AM

The preachy tone against the OP from some posters is annoying. Clearly the current system works poorly. Both he/she and society would be better off with some alternative arrangement along the lines of what is being asked about here.

In practical terms we know the chances of receiving compensation are next to nil, but isn't it worth considering how things could be better. For example, I think it's worth reflecting why victims of crime aren't compensated while repeat criminals are provided with well-paid free legal representation. I see very little justice in that.

Dr Turk Turkelton · 01-09-2018 09:18AM

4ensic15 wrote: »

Your bike was stolen and you want the culprit locked up for 30 years or so?
They have a 3 strikes and you are out in the States. there are millions in jail, bikes still get stolen and it costs the taxpayer to pay for the prisons.
You should just be more careful with any replacement bike you get.

And girls shouldn't wear short skirts when they go out eh?
Good attitude.

BrokenArrows · 02-09-2018 01:38PM

3 strikes rules are stupid but there should be a crime multiplier for past offences.

If the normal sentence for minor theft is 1 month and it's their 3rd conviction then it should be 3 X 1month.

Peregrinus · 03-09-2018 01:45AM

boombang wrote: »

The preachy tone against the OP from some posters is annoying. Clearly the current system works poorly. Both he/she and society would be better off with some alternative arrangement along the lines of what is being asked about here.

Alternative arrangements like three-strike laws have already been tried. They cost much, much more and work just as badly.

It is certainly, as you say, "worth considering how things could be better", but that does require us to focus on how things could be better, rather than on how we could satisfy our desire for vindication, revenge, etc. Locking people up has been amply proven to achieve very little at great cost, and we know that locking more people up for longer only changes one of those two things, and not the one we want to change. We actually have to be prepared to look at measure that deter crime, and that requires us to look at the factors that give rise to crime in the first place. Bigger fines and longer sentences won't reduce crime any more than better bandages and dressings will reduce the rate of wounding.

Stolen Bike compensation

Comments