Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Removing material from a skip.
Options
Comments
-
NUTLEY BOY wrote: »Look at what the Court of Appeal [EWCA] did here
LINK http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2003/2206.html
Defendants entered a golf course at night to dive in the water hazards to recover lost golf balls for re-sale. They had no permission to enter. They were convicted of theft. Appeal dismissed.
Its kind of amusing that if they were so confident the balls were not owned by anyone they found it advisable to go diving by night!0 -
Its kind of amusing that if they were so confident the balls were not owned by anyone they found it advisable to go diving by night!
If done by day it might be a bit distracting to the golfers, who if there were enough balls in the water trap to warrant a diving expedition, are clearly not that accurate!0 -
Regularly people take stuff from skips and decide later that they don't really want it and dump it down the road somewhere,0
-
brightspark wrote: »Apologies if too far off topic, but who owns the coins in a toll booth coin reject? (obviously if not collected by the driver who put them in)
Me0 -
Next in line with good eyesight.0
-
Advertisement
-
Is it illegal to put something in a skip left on the public road?
A gent in our area had a skip delivered on Friday evening in time for a big clear out on Saturday.
On Saturday morning the skip contained mattresses, bicycles, hedge clippings etc.
I know the skip was delivered Friday as I was talking with a neighbour who was cutting his hedge at the time it was delivered0 -
I got a free piano in ours.0
-
Its like the junk collection.council use to pick up for free.give u 2 days notice to put stuff out.when the travelers got wind of collection area.they would flood area with vans.take the sell able stuff throw rest around.then they started gettung fake cards made up.and they go around posting in certain areas.so people thought them real.and leave junk out.but the hungry feckers would ask the people for the cards back.we had another traveler who asked us for names of streets to be lived by council.use to tell him that info cost 4 breakfast rolls.so we d get 20 euros off him.and by the way we use to pick up tons of great stuff ourselfs to keep or sell on.0
-
Sure what harm if someone removes something from the skip - you're throwing it out for a reason! One man's trash is another's treasure. In some ways, people removing things allows for more stuff to be thrown in!0
-
The act of removing items from a skip is not illegal in Ireland even if the skip is on private property.
You can be done for trespassing on to private property.
Also where a skip is on public ground the had been cases where the skip diver's have been prosecuted for criminal damage while removal of items.
One a person places an item or wast into a skip it becomes the property of the refuge company same as the weekly bins people put out
I would disagree and suggest It's theft.
The people putting it out, did so for the bin company. Not for you or any third party.0 -
Advertisement
-
Niner leprauchan wrote: »I would disagree and suggest It's theft.
The people putting it out, did so for the bin company. Not for you or any third party.
It doesn't matter if you disagree,there is no law that makes it illegal .
People have been convicted of other offenses in relation to the removal from skips but not for the removal of items from them.0 -
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »That's pretty cool in fairness.
They used to do the same in Basel when I lived there. Once a month you could leave any unwanted reusable items out, furniture etc. Nothing electrical or gas. Not sure if it still happens.
Can only imagine the carnage if it was tried here.0 -
It doesn't matter if you disagree,there is no law that makes it illegal .
People have been convicted of other offenses in relation to the removal from skips but not for the removal of items from them.
again I disagree and this is a discussion forum afterall. Section 4 theft and fraud offences act 2001 covers in my opionion.
People dont get prosecuted because no one cares about it so dont make complaints but thats not to say that no prosecution has ever happened.
A quick google shows a case in the UK (https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/18286172.man-court-stealing-53-pouches-tobacco-skip/) and Germany (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50345264). Ok they are differerent jurisdictions but the UK theft offence is word for word almost the exact same as ours.
Of course a defence under subsection 2 could apply as well depending on the situation and the evidence in the case but I dont think its as clear cut as being ok to take purely based on its location.0 -
No. The people putting it out are paying the bin company to take it away. There is nothing in the transaction to suggest that they are selling it to the bin company (if they were, the payment flow would be the other way) or gifting it to the bin company (if they were gifting it, there would be no payment).Niner leprauchan wrote: »I would disagree and suggest It's theft.
The people putting it out, did so for the bin company. Not for you or any third party.
Putting something in the rubbish - whether your own bin left out for regular collection, or a public bin in the street, or a rubbish skip that you have hired - is tantamount to abandoning it. In the absence of some fairly unusual circumstance, it's now ownerless property, and anybody who acquired possession may assert ownership.
As a matter of civil law, the original owner could possibly assert that he hadn't intended to abandon ownership, and seek the return of the property, and he might succeed (depending on the facts).
But, as a matter of criminal law, I do not think a theft charge would succeed. Theft requires an intention to deprive the owner of the item concerned; if you think the property is abandoned you can't have that intention, and for a theft charge to succeed it would be necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the property was not abandoned, despite having been thrown into a bin or skip and left in the street for collection and disposal. Very hard to see how that could be proven.0 -
I had a skip in my garden once and had a random caller to the door asking if he could go through it. I said 'no' for the following reasons :
I was paying to dispose of waste material - what is the point of me paying for the temporary holding of the material in a large metal container, just so that it can be emptied by anyone passing by?
If material was taken from it, how would I know where it ended up? Again, part of my cost and obligation is to ensure that it is disposed of responsibly.
I also once had to order a skip for a work premises that was gone through so often that we filled it three times, before it was collected. It was gone through every night and was less full again in the morning. There was always a worry about where the waste had gone and where it might end up, but we didn't have the facilities to secure it or place a guard watch on it.
Who would go to the effort of taking something out of a skip only to dump it?
One mans rubbish is another man's treasure. Better than it ending up in landfill imo0 -
When I had a skip I was only delighted to see people take stuff from it. Meant that I had more room and didn't need to get a second.0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »No. The people putting it out are paying the bin company to take it away. There is nothing in the transaction to suggest that they are selling it to the bin company (if they were, the payment flow would be the other way) or gifting it to the bin company (if they were gifting it, there would be no payment).
Putting something in the rubbish - whether your own bin left out for regular collection, or a public bin in the street, or a rubbish skip that you have hired - is tantamount to abandoning it. In the absence of some fairly unusual circumstance, it's now ownerless property, and anybody who acquired possession may assert ownership.
As a matter of civil law, the original owner could possibly assert that he hadn't intended to abandon ownership, and seek the return of the property, and he might succeed (depending on the facts).
But, as a matter of criminal law, I do not think a theft charge would succeed. Theft requires an intention to deprive the owner of the item concerned; if you think the property is abandoned you can't have that intention, and for a theft charge to succeed it would be necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the property was not abandoned, despite having been thrown into a bin or skip and left in the street for collection and disposal. Very hard to see how that could be proven.
I havent at one stage mentioned tort, just criminal but I cannot see how you can claim what I think or what I have agreed with my bin company. Thats very much down to the inidividual. The 'reasonable person' leaves a bin out to be disposed off by a set company. Not by random strangers to pick through. Thats the intention.
When you leave something out, its in line with a set contract that the property is to be removed by a set company. Its illegal to abandon property in public so the suggestion doesnt hold water in my opinion where the item is in a skip that I have hired from a set company who have their logo on the side. Same with my bins, no person has permission to go into my bins. Implied or expressed.
Now, Im completely in agreement that a complaint is highly unlikely. Why would it? As numerous people have said, more room for more junk and everyone is happy.
Thats the practice, Im discussing the possible based on law and have cited a UK case where the defence of abandonment was not met or accepted. We both know that while not binding, UK precendent does tend to carry some weight in Ireland.
The closest Irish case isnt the exact same. Its in relation to clothes for charity where the collectors were held to be dishonest as the collection was in fact not for any registered charity. Again it required a complaint which was obtained on that rare occasion but very unlikely in most cases.0 -
I don't know what's in your contract with your bin company, obviously, but I'd be astonished if it included a clause transferring ownership of your wast material to the bin company. The bin company has no desire to own your waste and certainly would not include such a clause in their standard contracts.Niner leprauchan wrote: »I havent at one stage mentioned tort, just criminal but I cannot see how you can claim what I think or what I have agreed with my bin company. Thats very much down to the inidividual. The 'reasonable person' leaves a bin out to be disposed off by a set company. Not by random strangers to pick through. Thats the intention.
When you leave something out, its in line with a set contract that the property is to be removed by a set company. Its illegal to abandon property in public so the suggestion doesnt hold water in my opinion where the item is in a skip that I have hired from a set company who have their logo on the side. Same with my bins, no person has permission to go into my bins. Implied or expressed.
Now, Im completely in agreement that a complaint is highly unlikely. Why would it? As numerous people have said, more room for more junk and everyone is happy.
Thats the practice, Im discussing the possible based on law and have cited a UK case where the defence of abandonment was not met or accepted. We both know that while not binding, UK precendent does tend to carry some weight in Ireland.
The closest Irish case isnt the exact same. Its in relation to clothes for charity where the collectors were held to be dishonest as the collection was in fact not for any registered charity. Again it required a complaint which was obtained on that rare occasion but very unlikely in most cases.
In any event, I don't see how this would help you. If you were transferring ownership of your waste to the bin company by putting it in the bin and leaving it out, then they might complain about someone else taking it but you certainly can't; it's not your waste. Nor can you object to somebody going into "your bins"; they are the wast company's bins.
Tl;dr - if you want to retain title to your waste then don't put it in a bin on the street, which is pretty universally understood as indicating that you don't want the stuff any more and have no interest in keeping it. You could perhaps avoid that inference by putting a sign on the bin to the effect that waste in the bin remains the property of Niner Leprechaun, and nobody may take it without permission.
Incidentally, the link you posted to the UK case is dead. Can you double-check it?0 -
I doubt any contract transfers ownership to bin company. If that was the case then there would be two issues (a) the original owner would never have to worry about flytipping by the bin company and (b) lets say 10kg of drugs were found in the skip, does the bin company get charged for possession of controlled substance simply by virtue of it being in the skip.
Most contracts I have seen, the ownership remains with the person but the bin company agrees to dispose of it in an enviormental and legal fashion.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »No. The people putting it out are paying the bin company to take it away. There is nothing in the transaction to suggest that they are selling it to the bin company (if they were, the payment flow would be the other way) or gifting it to the bin company (if they were gifting it, there would be no payment).
Putting something in the rubbish - whether your own bin left out for regular collection, or a public bin in the street, or a rubbish skip that you have hired - is tantamount to abandoning it. In the absence of some fairly unusual circumstance, it's now ownerless property, and anybody who acquired possession may assert ownership.
As a matter of civil law, the original owner could possibly assert that he hadn't intended to abandon ownership, and seek the return of the property, and he might succeed (depending on the facts).
But, as a matter of criminal law, I do not think a theft charge would succeed. Theft requires an intention to deprive the owner of the item concerned; if you think the property is abandoned you can't have that intention, and for a theft charge to succeed it would be necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the property was not abandoned, despite having been thrown into a bin or skip and left in the street for collection and disposal. Very hard to see how that could be proven.
It could well be argued that the owner has not abandoned the property placed in the skip but is in the process of delivering it to the refuse company who will convey it to recycling our landfill or incineration as the case may be. The owner would be responsible if he dumped the items on the street so he retains an interest in them even if his intention is to abandon them. The owner does not intend to abandon the items on until he no longer has any legal responsibility for them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Claw Hammer wrote: »It could well be argued that the owner has not abandoned the property placed in the skip but is in the process of delivering it to the refuse company who will convey it to recycling our landfill or incineration as the case may be. The owner would be responsible if he dumped the items on the street so he retains an interest in them even if his intention is to abandon them. The owner does not intend to abandon the items on until he no longer has any legal responsibility for them.
But at some point the ownership transfers. If I dump something in my bin, and my refuse collector collects and brings my waste to their site, and some time later, my waste, through a fault of the waste company, pollutes and causes another damage, I am not pursued for damages, but the refuse company is.0 -
It doesn't follow that ownership has transferred. Liablity for pollution, littering, etc tends to attach to the person who generates the pollutant, or who has control or possession of, or responsibility for, the pollutant than to the person who formally owns it. This makes sense because (a) the controller, etc is in a much better position to prevent pollutiont than the owner, and (b) many pollutants are abandoned, i.e. they have no owner.Carawaystick wrote: »But at some point the ownership transfers. If I dump something in my bin, and my refuse collector collects and brings my waste to their site, and some time later, my waste, through a fault of the waste company, pollutes and causes another damage, I am not pursued for damages, but the refuse company is.0 -
Carawaystick wrote: »But at some point the ownership transfers. If I dump something in my bin, and my refuse collector collects and brings my waste to their site, and some time later, my waste, through a fault of the waste company, pollutes and causes another damage, I am not pursued for damages, but the refuse company is.
It is still your waste. Having it removed by a licensed refuse company simply gives you a defence.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I don't know what's in your contract with your bin company, obviously, but I'd be astonished if it included a clause transferring ownership of your wast material to the bin company. The bin company has no desire to own your waste and certainly would not include such a clause in their standard contracts.joeguevara wrote: »I doubt any contract transfers ownership to bin company. If that was the case then there would be two issues (a) the original owner would never have to worry about flytipping by the bin company and (b) lets say 10kg of drugs were found in the skip, does the bin company get charged for possession of controlled substance simply by virtue of it being in the skip.
Most contracts I have seen, the ownership remains with the person but the bin company agrees to dispose of it in an enviormental and legal fashion.
Perhaps its the way I posted but looking back, I havent mentioned transferring ownership in my last post. I stated that I have a contract with the waste company. That contract does not allow any third party to go through my bins or the skip I have hired. I think its another user xz... that talked about transfering ownership.
Thats just the reality. Its not your property in the skip / bin and you have no right, implied or other to open the bin and go through it.
In that case, the ingrediants of theft have been met ASSUMING that the owner ie me in this case, is actually bothered making a complaint. Thats highly unlikely unless it was a daily issue or the contents were being scattered,
In regards the drugs, you need to be in Posession or take ownership of them. Abandoned in a skip without evidence of who put them there or that the driver was aware, would be highly unlikely to meet the prosecution standard. Theres no mens rea afterall.
Heres the link to the Uk case I mentioned. Hopefully it works this time
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/18286172.man-court-stealing-53-pouches-tobacco-skip/0 -
The breakthrough in the Graham O'Dwyer case cae as a result of two gardai (one of whom was a Chief Super) searching O'Dwyer's bins after they were put out on the pavement. The evidence was not used to prove his guilt but created the trail to confirn that he had left relevant stains at the victim's house. I understand that significant efforts were undertaken to ensure that the taking of the property was lawful.
Frankly, I cannot see it being a "theft" as there is no "dishonesty", it is hard to "appropriate" something which has been discarded by the erstwhile owner who has not been "deprived"of its use given that they have thrown it away. I would have thought that there was a a significant difference between a vessel (skip, wheelie bin, whatever) on a private premises and one left on the side of the road.
As regards the pollution/waste management point, absent hazardous materials, it is the actions of the waste management company and not the waste per se which would be the pollution.0 -
Skips on a public road are supposed to be licensed and are not intended to be there for the public at large to rummage through.
As for dishonesty, it comes down to the view of the tribunal of fact. It is a defence to a charge of theft to show that there was a reasonable belief the owner would have allowed the appropriation if he had been asked.
It can well be inferred that failure to ask was because it was known that the owner would not have given permission. Like everything, it will turn on the facts.
It would, in all likelihood, be difficult to bring a theft charge home whether the skip was on private land or a public road.0 -
My apologies for confusing the two posts. My fault.Niner leprauchan wrote: »Perhaps its the way I posted but looking back, I havent mentioned transferring ownership in my last post. I stated that I have a contract with the waste company. That contract does not allow any third party to go through my bins or the skip I have hired. I think its another user xz... that talked about transfering ownership.
Still, I’m not inclined to attach much weight to the fact that the contract “doesn’t allow any third party to go through my bins”. Why would it? Third parties are, by definition, not parties to the contract, so the contract wouldn’t be an apt instrument either for conferring rights on them or for imposing restrictions on them.
My suggestion is that a third party can take your waste not because any contract allows it but simply because it is waste; i.e. you have thrown it away, thereby abandoning ownership of it. The fact that you have entered into a contract with someone to take it away and dispose of it doesn’t evidence an intention to retain ownership; just an intention not to incur liability under the waste/littering/pollution legislation. This has nothing to do with ownership; whether you are liable in relation to any waste, litter or pollutant doesn’t depend at all on whether you own it or not.
My suggestion is that it’s not initially my property; it’s abandoned and ownerless. But I can make abandoned, ownerless things my own by appropriating them and, when I do, then they’re my property.Niner leprauchan wrote: »Thats just the reality. Its not your property in the skip / bin and you have no right, implied or other to open the bin and go through it.
On a nitpick, whether you make a complaint or not is irrelevant to whether the ingredients of theft have been met; a complaint by the owner is not one of the elements of the offence.Niner leprauchan wrote: »In that case, the ingrediants of theft have been met ASSUMING that the owner ie me in this case, is actually bothered making a complaint. Thats highly unlikely unless it was a daily issue or the contents were being scattered,
But two things do have to be established before the offence is made out. First, you must actually be the owner of whatever I have taken; you must not have abandoned it. And, secondly, I must intend to deprive you of your property - i.e., I must know, or be taken to know, that you have not abandoned it. And my suggestion is that you leaving the property in a bin in the public street either (a) is actually abandonment or (b) at the very least, makes it reasonable to think that I honestly believe you to have abandoned it - either of which would mean that a theft charge cannot succeed.
It does, thanks. And I must admit it puzzles me. The defendant found stuff in a skip and took it for his own use. He pleaded guilty to theft by finding. On my reasoning above he had at least an arguable defence. So why plead guilty?Niner leprauchan wrote: »Heres the link to the Uk case I mentioned. Hopefully it works this time . . .
A couple of possible answers suggest themselves:
1. In this case the property appeared to be valuable - 53 pouches of (what he thought was) tobacco. It seems unreasonable to think that someone would intentionally abandon valuable property. If you find that in a bin you might be expected to think it had been put there by mistake, not as an act of abandonment.
2. We’re not told where the skip was. If it was on private land, e.g. in a yard, the inference of abandonment would not be so strong.
3. There’s a plea bargain. We are told that police investigated a shop burglary, and searched the defendant’s flat. But they didn’t find the tobacco in the flat; they found it in a bin. And it doesn’t belong to the shop owner, so it can’t have been taken in the shop burglary. The shop burglary is never mentioned again, and no charges seem to have been brought in relation to it. So why is it even being mentioned? Possibly the police agreed not to proceed with burglary charges (where the evidence may have meant a conviction was uncertain) if the defendant agreed to plead to the relatively minor charge of theft by finding.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »My apologies for confusing the two posts. My fault.
Still, I’m not inclined to attach much weight to the fact that the contract “doesn’t allow any third party to go through my bins”. Why would it? Third parties are, by definition, not parties to the contract, so the contract wouldn’t be an apt instrument either for conferring rights on them or for imposing restrictions on them.
My suggestion is that a third party can take your waste not because any contract allows it but simply because it is waste; i.e. you have thrown it away, thereby abandoning ownership of it. The fact that you have entered into a contract with someone to take it away and dispose of it doesn’t evidence an intention to retain ownership; just an intention not to incur liability under the waste/littering/pollution legislation. This has nothing to do with ownership; whether you are liable in relation to any waste, litter or pollutant doesn’t depend at all on whether you own it or not.
My suggestion is that it’s not initially my property; it’s abandoned and ownerless. But I can make abandoned, ownerless things my own by appropriating them and, when I do, then they’re my property.
On a nitpick, whether you make a complaint or not is irrelevant to whether the ingredients of theft have been met; a complaint by the owner is not one of the elements of the offence.
But two things do have to be established before the offence is made out. First, you must actually be the owner of whatever I have taken; you must not have abandoned it. And, secondly, I must intend to deprive you of your property - i.e., I must know, or be taken to know, that you have not abandoned it. And my suggestion is that you leaving the property in a bin in the public street either (a) is actually abandonment or (b) at the very least, makes it reasonable to think that I honestly believe you to have abandoned it - either of which would mean that a theft charge cannot succeed.
It does, thanks. And I must admit it puzzles me. The defendant found stuff in a skip and took it for his own use. He pleaded guilty to theft by finding. On my reasoning above he had at least an arguable defence. So why plead guilty?
A couple of possible answers suggest themselves:
1. In this case the property appeared to be valuable - 53 pouches of (what he thought was) tobacco. It seems unreasonable to think that someone would intentionally abandon valuable property. If you find that in a bin you might be expected to think it had been put there by mistake, not as an act of abandonment.
2. We’re not told where the skip was. If it was on private land, e.g. in a yard, the inference of abandonment would not be so strong.
3. There’s a plea bargain. We are told that police investigated a shop burglary, and searched the defendant’s flat. But they didn’t find the tobacco in the flat; they found it in a bin. And it doesn’t belong to the shop owner, so it can’t have been taken in the shop burglary. The shop burglary is never mentioned again, and no charges seem to have been brought in relation to it. So why is it even being mentioned? Possibly the police agreed not to proceed with burglary charges (where the evidence may have meant a conviction was uncertain) if the defendant agreed to plead to the relatively minor charge of theft by finding.
It was “theft by finding” rather than the Irish theft offence. The property was (erroneously) perceived to be valuable so it would not be reasonable to infer that it was abandoned and thus the finder had an obligation to seek out the owner and return it to them or the police. I infer from the reports of the case that the shopkeeper has acquired untaxed “tobacco” which he intended to sell but on identifying it as counterfeit he disposed of it in a skip. He could not admit to have disposed of it without admitting to possession of a putatively illicit item (again my inference).0 -
SFAIK, there isn’t a distinct offence in England of “theft by finding”. There’s just theft contrary to Theft Act 1968 s. 1. “Theft by finding” is a shorthand for the ordinary offence of theft, committed in circumstances which start with the defendant finding apparently lost, mislaid or abandoned property.It was “theft by finding” rather than the Irish theft offence. The property was (erroneously) perceived to be valuable so it would not be reasonable to infer that it was abandoned and thus the finder had an obligation to seek out the owner and return it to them or the police. I infer from the reports of the case that the shopkeeper has acquired untaxed “tobacco” which he intended to sell but on identifying it as counterfeit he disposed of it in a skip. He could not admit to have disposed of it without admitting to possession of a putatively illicit item (again my inference).
In England, a person commits theft “if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. For a successful prosecution, you need to prove every element of the offence, including that the property belonged to someone else
So, on the face of it, the the conviction in the Lancashire case looks (from the newspaper report) iffy. The only evidence as to ownership before the court was that the shopkeeper did not own the fake tobacco. There was no evidence about who did own it.
Plus, it seems to me that the fact that it was counterfeit makes it entirely possible that someone had dumped it in the skip with the intention of abandoning it - they couldn’t smoke it; they couldn’t sell it without expecting anger and possibly worse from buyers who discovered it was unsmokeable; continued possession of it was pointless and risky, since it might link them to a tobacco counterfeiting/smuggling ring and perhaps expose them to other legal risks. So they dumped it.
What might save the conviction is the provision in Theft Act 1968 s. 5 which gives an extended meaning to the expression “belonging to”. For the purposes of the Theft Act, property “shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it”. So you could argue that anything in a skip or bin on private land “belongs to” the person in occupation of the land. We’re not told where the skip was, but let’s assume it might have been was in a yard attached to the shop. In that case, even if the fake tobacco was abandoned, ownerless property, for the purposes of a theft charge it “belonged to” the shopkeeper.
The Irish theft legislation is similar. Under Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 s. 4 someone commits theft if he or she “dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it”. And under s. 2(4) “a person shall be regarded as owning property if he or she has possession or control of it”. Which, again, I think means that (for the purposes of a theft charge) you are an “owner” of any property on land that you occupy.
Which would mean that if somebody comes into your garden and goes through your bins, they are guilty of theft in relation to anything they take. But if they wait until bin day and go through your bins after you have put them out in the street, I don’t think a theft charge will succeed. Same applies to anything in a skip.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is another point to consider. What if people removing stuff from the skip fall or injure them selves. Where i used to work we had a skip on the property and 2 gents in a white van came and decided to rummage through the top of the skip. Well low and behold he stepped on a big rusty nail in a piece of wood. I gave him bandages and dettol when I went outside to see what they were at. The boss said I shouldnt of given them anything as it might be accepting liability. In fairness we never heard anything back from them so were not sued:)
But if this was residential and same thing happened an injury or fall from the skip you could be in trouble even if you didnt give permission:eek:0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement