Bike stolen and retrieved - extraordinary day!

[honesty]

I’m always absolutely paranoid about leaving my bike out of view on trains so I always cable lock it to the train, even in bike spaces, even when the sign specifically says not to...

[John1054]

I’m always absolutely paranoid about leaving my bike out of view on trains so I always cable lock it to the train, even in bike spaces, even when the sign specifically says not to...

So am I now after this incident.

[PDQ Mobile]

Result!
I imagine the horrible pit of the stomach feeling when you saw it was gone was compensated in part by the relief of seeing your friend against the wall.
Celebration!
Now what was the name of that pub?!!

[661-Pete]

On reflection (i.e. having slept on it - sort of) I think I might be mistaken about the extra 14 miles. I thought I'd reset the trip on setting out from home, but now I'm not sure I did (senior moments!). If not, the extra miles and the 7mph average would be consistent with my having done several short runs into town the week before, with constant stop-starts and giving way to pedestrians.

If, after all, the bike was only ridden the short distance from station to the pub, which is near Plumpton College, this fits in better with the 'student' hypothesis, seeing as the train was late, is often used by students coming from Haywards Heath (so I'm told), and there's only an intermittent bus service from station to college.

I may get in touch with the college. After all, the next person to have a bike stolen may not be so lucky!

[thirdcrank]

... I think it's hard to argue that the intention wasn't to deprive the owner permanently. The bike was taken from a train and then left unlocked against a wall two miles away. Under those circumstances, I imagine that there's rather less than an even chance of the bike ever being returned to the owner. It's only by chance that the bike wasn't taken from where it had been dumped. It was only by chance that the owner knew at what station the bike was taken. And it was only by persistence that the owner travelled so far out of the village in the right direction.

I can only say that ever since the invention of the motor car, joy riding or otherwise borrowing cars has been a problem because of the historic permanent deprivation requirement of the Larceny Act, 1861 which consolidated existing law and was renewed in the Theft Act 1968. An obvious alternative - theft of the fuel consumed - has never been a particularly satisfactory charge (and obviously wouldn't apply to a pedal cycle.) I don't know all the legislative history but prior to the Theft Act, 1968, the offence was covered by the Road Traffic Act as a driving offence. As an aside, many years ago I had to go on duty to St Ives in Cornwall and the police there had a big problem with speedboats being taken for a spin.

I think the point about permanent deprivation is that it relates to the intention - mens rea - of the taker: if they didn't intend to deprive the owner permanently, it's not theft, even if that's the outcome. In a case where the vehicle is prominently abandoned by the taker they would be able to argue that they expected it would be seen and reported. Obviously, abandoned motor vehicles are more obvious than pedal cycles. I can only say it would need evidence of something like sale, dismantling, repainting, removing serial numbers, prolonged use or concealment to amount to theft.

It's easy to look down the wrong end of the spyglass here: the prosecution has to prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

[661-Pete]

Now what was the name of that pub?!!

The Half Moon - but I don't know that pub except as a landmark, no idea what it's like inside. I'd go for the Plough - also near Plumpton but two miles to the north of the village, instead of the south.

[SussexMan]

All Southern trains on that route have CCTV. Would need the police to request it and they may feel that as you have it back they won't take further action.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my Moto G Play using hovercraft full of eels.

[Mick F]

I shall be a lot more careful about watching my bike on a train, in future.

When I've been on a train with my bike, it hasn't left my eyesight ..................... except twice.

First was on a X-Country train to Edinburgh. The bike stowage was at the far end of the train, and my seat was at the other far end.
Prior to each and every stop, I went to stand next to it until we moved off again.

Second was a GWR to Redruth.
The bike stowage wasn't accessible from the train coaches as the only way in and out was from the platform. Anyone could have got on at a station, nicked a bike, and got off again, and the owner wouldn't have known one way or another.

Never again will it be out of my sight. FGW won't be getting my custom on trains like that again.

[bovlomov]

I think the point about permanent deprivation is that it relates to the intention - mens rea - of the taker: if they didn't intend to deprive the owner permanently, it's not theft, even if that's the outcome. In a case where the vehicle is prominently abandoned by the taker they would be able to argue that they expected it would be seen and reported. Obviously, abandoned motor vehicles are more obvious than pedal cycles. I can only say it would need evidence of something like sale, dismantling, repainting, removing serial numbers, prolonged use or concealment to amount to theft.

It's easy to look down the wrong end of the spyglass here: the prosecution has to prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Thanks.

In that case there seems to be a gap in the law. What you describe is less about permanent deprivation than about an intention to keep, or profit from, the stolen item. If it was money that was taken and left on a park bench, would that not be treated as theft?

I'm tempted to say, on the basis of this one incident, that Parliament needs to urgently review the law.

[meic]

The "crime" involved is conversion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)

A bit complicated for me but it appears it may only be a civil offence in this particular case.
So you can sue them if you catch them but it isnt Police business, just like if somebody dumps their litter bags in your front garden.

[thirdcrank]

... In that case there seems to be a gap in the law. What you describe is less about permanent deprivation than about an intention to keep, or profit from, the stolen item. If it was money that was taken and left on a park bench, would that not be treated as theft?

I'm tempted to say, on the basis of this one incident, that Parliament needs to urgently review the law.

The review took place prior to the passing of the Theft Act, 1968. Here's the apparently simple bit:

1 Basic definition of theft.
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

The next few sections define the main words. Eg, once upon a time lawyers always said everything twice (eg Last will and testament.) Under the Larceny Act it was "takes and carries away" two actions which both had to be present (even if the property wasn't.) "Appropriates" is now one action, which you can do without laying a finger on the loot. "Property" is another. Under the Larceny Act, anything fastened down to the realty couldn't be stolen (unless somebody had detached it, in which case it wasn't attached.) That was preserved in a modified form but we got two subsections covering mushrooms and wild animals.

(3) A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.
For purposes of this subsection “mushroom” includes any fungus, and “plant” includes any shrub or tree.

(4) Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of reducing it into possession.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/4

I think people taking a bike for a ride are low on the list of those revising the law. (Cue for a joke about the cycling vicar and the Seventh Commandment. )

BTW, in 1967 I learned much of the Larceny Act by heart, and the follwing year it was obsolete.

[mercalia]

you were lucky and just boosts my fears and attention thanks. I have heard worse - when a studant in london I heard of a student of my aquaintance who is now a uni lecturer who stole a car to get home.......

[bovlomov]

... In that case there seems to be a gap in the law. What you describe is less about permanent deprivation than about an intention to keep, or profit from, the stolen item. If it was money that was taken and left on a park bench, would that not be treated as theft?

I'm tempted to say, on the basis of this one incident, that Parliament needs to urgently review the law.

The review took place prior to the passing of the Theft Act, 1968. Here's the apparently simple bit:

1 Basic definition of theft.
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

This seems like a good loophole for anarchists and protesters to exploit. I can imagine all sorts of mischief that could be done, moving stuff about without actually 'stealing'.

[whoof]

Good to hear this had a happy ending.

A colleague of Mrs Whoof put their bike in the bike compartment/van on a train and when they came to get it it was gone. Someone had boarded the train with an old mountain bike and then 'upgraded' to their bike when they got off.

Fortunately this also had a happy ending as BTP reviewed the CCTV as soon a it was reported, spotted where the thief got off and he was recognised as a regular. The police managed to recover the bike. Supposedly it usually takes a few days for them to review CCTV by which time the bike will have been sold on.

I will also be locking my bike when it's on a train from now on.

[thirdcrank]

... This seems like a good loophole for anarchists and protesters to exploit. I can imagine all sorts of mischief that could be done, moving stuff about without actually 'stealing'.

Just because it's not stealing, that doesn't mean it's not another offence.............. in this case, taking a conveyance etc. or poaching in the case of the wild animals above. But it is right that just moving something about isn't theft. As an example, in the days when Leeds United was a more successful team than it is now, the police used to put out several hundred portable "No waiting" signs on the streets in the vicinity of Elland Road. A lot were slung over the nearest wall by people who thought it would enable them to park and others were taken by people for their private use. To reduce the cost of replacements, somebody had the bright idea of numbering them all and recording a crime whenever a sign went awol. At one point, on of my many responsibilities included investigating these "thefts" which were generally cleared up with a look in the nearest backyard.