well I have had officers make up documents that don't exist right to my face and it only took a few phone calls to prove that! but i think that the officer was doing that to save his brother from having to park his camper on the road as it is parked on the pavement and that is illegal
It's not illegal to park on the pavement according to the road traffic act....
What IS illegal is "causing an unnecessary obstruction" or "causing a dangerous obstruction". These are non-endorsable and endorsable offences so were £30 and £60/3 points offences until the rates just went up. If you park on a thin road which has a wide pavement and park 2 feet onto the pavement so that you can still get through then you don't commit the offence.
Also if the road itself has a yellow line or two these will still apply even if the car is totally on the pavement.
There are some roads round here which are 30 feet wide with 15 feet wide pavements. You can park completely on the pavement and still get past with a double buggy.
SOME councils have by-laws which make parking on the verge or pavement illegal and this is then down to the council rather than the police.
As for the comment about the offenders getting off... That was most likely because they were charged with an offence which requires the car to be capable of actually moving rather than a straight up theft offence. If they are walking along the road with parts of someone else's car that they took and didn't have permission (and they were later going to sell) then they commit theft...
"Dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive"
So it's:
- dishonest YES
- appropriate YES (this means take ownership/remove etc)
- property YES
- belonging to another YES
- with the intention to permanently deprive YES (this is the bit that caused joy riders to get off for several years before the government added a new law of UTMV which did not require the permanent part)
There are lots of theft act offences such as "UTMV", "Vehicle interference" etc (don't take it literally it is specific).
An inexperienced officer could have used the wrong offence which requires that the offender was doing something in order to steal the car. If the car is not drivable this could possibly be a get out. They should have gone with a straight up section 1 Theft offence as shown above.
Everyone has to learn and it is more likely inexperience which caused the offenders to get off which could I suppose be described as incompetence but the reality is that the law in the UK including relevant case history would fill 60 feet+ of A4 binders. Asked a police officer in London about an offence of badger baiting and he or she would mostly have no idea but ask one who works in the green parts of the shires and they would know but would probably have difficulty with anti-terrorism legislation.
The full definition of theft as per section 1 of the theft act is:
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.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).
The full definition of vehicle interference (from the criminal attempts act):
9 Interference with vehicles.
(1)A person is guilty of the offence of vehicle interference if he interferes with a motor vehicle or trailer or with anything carried in or on a motor vehicle or trailer with the intention that an offence specified in subsection (2) below shall be committed by himself or some other person.
(2)The offences mentioned in subsection (1) above are—
(a)theft of the motor vehicle or trailer or part of it;
(b)theft of anything carried in or on the motor vehicle or trailer; and
(c)an offence under section 12(1) of the M12Theft Act 1968 (taking and driving away without consent);and, if it is shown that a person accused of an offence under this section intended that one of those offences should be committed, it is immaterial that it cannot be shown which it was.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding [level 4 on the standard scale] or to both.
(4) --
(5)In this section “motor vehicle” and “trailer” have the meanings assigned to them by [section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988].
So from reading the above it might look as though he is guilty but if the court decide that the "vehicle" is not a vehicle because it is incapable of driving then maybe THAT is why he got off. Seems unlikely to me but I wasn't there so can only go off the information at hand.
They also might have got a jury to accept that they didn't steal them but that someone else did and they simply were given them or similar so in that instance it might have been safer to charge then with "Handling stolen goods" as well, just in case. (which actually attracts a higher sentence!)
and I live in a semi rural area where there are lots of Defenders. There have been 3 thefts this month according to the local police
