Passenger in stolen car, few questions
james313
well tomorrow im going to the police station to be charged with allowing
myself to be carried in a stolen vehicle
im 17, no prior convictions. however the driver of the car is being
charged with death by wreckless driving.
what's the worst case scenario for me ? could they remand me in custody
until trial ?
--
james313
A.Lee
Yes, they could.
You dont give enough info to give a more considered view.
It is such a serious offence,that any Usenet post will be worthless
compared to a Solicitor who has all the facts.
If you cannot afford one of your own choice, get the Duty Solicitor to
sit in and advise you.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Chris R
>> allowing myself to be carried in a stolen vehicle
>> im 17, no prior convictions. however the driver of the car is being
>> charged with death by wreckless driving.
>> what's the worst case scenario for me ? could they remand me in
>> custody until trial ?
>
> Yes, they could.
> You dont give enough info to give a more considered view.
> It is such a serious offence,that any Usenet post will be worthless
> compared to a Solicitor who has all the facts.
> If you cannot afford one of your own choice, get the Duty Solicitor to
> sit in and advise you.
> Alan.
I'm no criminal expert, but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Allowing
oneself to be carried in a stolen vehicle is not especially serious, and I
would be amazed if either it carried an immediate custodial sentence in the
circumstances described, or if the OP were refused bail.
Chris R
A.Lee
> >> well tomorrow im going to the police station to be charged with
> >> allowing myself to be carried in a stolen vehicle
> >> im 17, no prior convictions. however the driver of the car is being
> >> charged with death by wreckless driving.
> >> what's the worst case scenario for me ? could they remand me in
> >> custody until trial ?
> >
> > Yes, they could.
> > You dont give enough info to give a more considered view.
> > It is such a serious offence,that any Usenet post will be worthless
> > compared to a Solicitor who has all the facts.
> I'm no criminal expert, but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Allowing
> oneself to be carried in a stolen vehicle is not especially serious, and I
> would be amazed if either it carried an immediate custodial sentence in the
> circumstances described, or if the OP were refused bail.
That is why I said "They could".
We know little of the circumstances, so cannot give anything but an
overview. That someone was killed by the stealing and driving of the
vehicle will make it a serious offence.
Peter Crosland
You need to see a solicitor. You will be entitled to one if you ask at the
police station.
Peter Crosland
Scavenger
Just deny that you knew it was stolen and have a jury trial.
The Todal
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rpudnQHDsIJFjavX...@brightview.co.uk...
I'm no criminal expert either, but I have a few books. They aren't
necessarily up to date though.
The offence appears to be "aggravated vehicle-taking". It applies if, having
allowed yourself to be driven in a car that you know to be stolen, you are
then involved in an accident that causes serious injury or death (due to the
way your vehicle was driven - obviously not applicable if it was entirely
the fault of someone driving a different vehicle). Imprisonment is
certainly an option, perhaps even more likely than not.
On indictment, maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment or a fine or both.
It is absolutely essential to get legal advice and to do it now.
Toom Tabard
wrote:
That offence, per se, for a youth conviction, is of medium severity.
See eg
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/downloads/ycbb/ycbb_section2.pdf See page
2-3 "allowing himself to be carried in a stolen vehicle" and the
sentencing matrix in page 2-9. But that is for an 'average' offence of
the type described - it would depend on how the court views it in this
case where someone has been killed
However, if it were to escalate to aiding and abetting dangerous
driving, then that can be serious custodial offence, see eg
http://www.cumbria.police.uk/news_10337.htm
particularly if the case death by dangerous driving.
Toom
The Todal
"Scavenger" <anyol...@tiscali.net> wrote in message
news:h154b5$8bj$2...@aioe.org...
This is extremely bad advice - even if it does pass moderation. If he knew
the car was stolen (and he hasn't actually said so) then he probably ought
to admit it, rather than prolong the trial and not get any sentencing
discount which he might get for pleading guilty.
As per the charter and moderation guidelines for this group: if your
question is important to you, please seek advice from a qualified legal
professional.
www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
ne...@address.invalid
>Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> That someone was killed by the stealing and driving of the
>vehicle will make it a serious offence.
But the OP is not being charged with the reckless driving or killing.
His *only* alleged offence is being a passenger in a stolen vehicle.
The driver's offences are nothing to do with him.
The Todal
<ne...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:mm8c35l5dqhujo97m...@4ax.com...
And that would be a very dangerous assumption to make.
See the Theft Act 1968 section 12, which lumps together those who steal a
vehicle and those who allow themselves to be carried in it. 6 months
imprisonment max, but then look at 12A which describes the aggravated
offence which is when you go on to have an accident.
Something is wrong with my browser today - it won't let me copy and paste.
But you can find it with Google.
Steve Firth
> well tomorrow im going to the police station to be charged with allowing
> myself to be carried in a stolen vehicle
>
> im 17, no prior convictions. however the driver of the car is being
> charged with death by wreckless driving.
>
> what's the worst case scenario for me ?
There was a case of a similar nature in Hampshire following an incident
on 20th August 2008 where a driver without a licence or insurance
collided with a cyclist, killing him, and with another person causing
serious injury. The driver was charged with:
* causing death by dangerous driving
* causing death by driving without a licence
* causing death while driving without insurance.
The passenger was charged with:
* aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring causing death by
dangerous driving
* aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring causing death by
driving without a licence
* aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring causing death by
driving while driving without insurance
I'd say that was pretty much the worst case scenario for a pasenger.
However it's not possible to say on the information that you provide if
any of those charges would apply in your case.
> could they remand me in custody until trial ?
They could, but even in the case above the passenger was granted bail
subject to these conditions:
* Not to make any travel arrangements
* To live and sleep at his home address
* To be at home between 8pm and 6am
* Report to a police station on a Tuesday and Friday.
So I'd guess that bail is more or less guaranteed unless you cannot or
will not agree to a similar set of conditions.
Scavenger
You want a person to plead guilty just to get it over with and to make
life easier for the court and prosecution?
If he genuinely didn't know the car was stolen then he has a full and
complete defense. Not 'bad advice' at all.
ne...@address.invalid
wrote:
You illustrate perfectly why a non-lawyer like me should not be making
comments here.
But can the aggravated offence your describe follow directly from the
simple-sounding charge that the OP describes? If this is the case then
he certainly needs the solicitor!
A.Lee
Snip being a passenger in a stolen car that killed someone.
>
> You illustrate perfectly why a non-lawyer like me should not be making
> comments here.
> But can the aggravated offence your describe follow directly from the
> simple-sounding charge that the OP describes? If this is the case then
> he certainly needs the solicitor!
It can be a simple charge when no other factors are involved. e.g. if a
youth took his parents car without consent, invited his mate along, they
were subsequently stopped just down the road. Both could be charged,
TWOC for the driver, a lesser charge of being in a stolen vehicle for
the passenger (I'm not sure of the actual Charge).
However, in the OP's case, someone has been killed during the theft or
by the subsequent driving of the stolen vehicle. This makes the offence
far more serious, but we do not know how serious, as the OP has given no
details.
Chris R
ne...@address.invalid opined:
By snipping the thread you misquote me. I did not say what you attribute to
me above.
Chris R
The Todal
His lawyer might advise him to plead guilty, to get a reduced sentence.
>
> If he genuinely didn't know the car was stolen then he has a full and
> complete defense. Not 'bad advice' at all.
Somehow I think if he didn't know, he'd have mentioned this in his post. But
I might be wrong.
You've changed your position slightly. Instead of "just deny that you knew"
what you are saying is "if you didn't know it was stolen, then that's your
defence and you should argue it.
Otherwise it might be misinterpreted as "whatever you actually knew, just
deny it and make them prove it".
Martin Bonner
> james313 <james313.47b6...@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote:
> > could they remand me in custody until trial ?
>
> They could, but even in the case above the passenger was granted bail
> subject to these conditions:
>
> * Not to make any travel arrangements
> * To live and sleep at his home address
> * To be at home between 8pm and 6am
> * Report to a police station on a Tuesday and Friday.
>
> So I'd guess that bail is more or less guaranteed unless you cannot or
> will not agree to a similar set of conditions.
My understanding (and I could be wrong), is that there is an
assumption in favour of bail, and it can only be denied if there is a
risk that the accused will
- abscond
- attempt to interfere with witnesses
- reoffend
The mere seriousness (or not) of the offence is not particularly
relevent. (I don't know if it is possible to be remanded in custody
for an offence that doesn't carry a possible jail sentence - I can
imagine the answer being "yes" if the accussed is considered very
likely to abscond.)
So whether the OP is going to be remanded in custody is going to
depend on what the magistrates think of the OP - and he is in a better
position to judge that than the rest of us.
**HOWEVER** I would repeat the advice offered by others - see a
solicitor. The plans to means-test Legal Aid for criminal charges
have not yet been removed implemented.
R. Mark Clayton
"james313" <james313...@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote in message
news:james313...@legalbanter.co.uk...
Two years and yes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> james313
Best case is if you didn't know it was stolen (he said it was his car, his
mate's car, his dad's car that he could drive while they were on holiday
etc.).
This won't wash if you were involved in the theft and / or you knew the
driver was drunk, underage, disqualified etc.
This charge may be to discourage you from giving evidence helpful to the
driver or to discredit if you do.
Assuming, as is likely, that the death arose from driver's driving, he is
looking at five to ten years.
Steve Firth
> Assuming, as is likely, that the death arose from driver's driving, he is
> looking at five to ten years.
The case I mentioned previously resulted in a 7.5 year sentence and a
lifetime driving ban for the driver. The passenger is still on the run.
Toom Tabard
> Innews:mm8c35l5dqhujo97m...@4ax.com,
> n...@address.invalid opined:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:45:04 +0100, a...@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>
> >> Chris R <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >> That someone was killed by the stealing and driving of the
> >> vehicle will make it a serious offence.
>
> > But the OP is not being charged with the reckless driving or killing.
> > His *only* alleged offence is being a passenger in a stolen vehicle.
> > The driver's offences are nothing to do with him.
>
> By snipping the thread you misquote me. I did not say what you attribute to
> me above.
>
Indded, it has been wrongly attributed to you.
'Allowing yourself to be carried in a stolen vehicle' is a passive
offence and has a 'medium' non-custodial penalty. It would be
difficult to see how it could be escalated to 'serious' if it is
passive with little influence on the outcome. If there is further
culpability on the OP it would be more likely that the charge would be
escalated to 'aiding and abetting' dangerous driving or aiding and
abetting causing death by dangerous driving, which would probably
involve a serious custodial sentence.
Toom
Dr Zoidberg
> Best case is if you didn't know it was stolen (he said it was his car, his
> mate's car, his dad's car that he could drive while they were on holiday
> etc.).
>
> This won't wash if you were involved in the theft and / or you knew the
> driver was drunk, underage, disqualified etc.
And expect to be asked all sorts of questions about this.
How and how long did you know the driver?
If you do know him , what vehicles are you aware of him owning & driving.
Were there any signs of the vehicle being stolen such as no cowling around the ignition.
Do you know where he works and how much he earns - if you know he is unemployed then it calls into question his ability to own an expensive car.
I could go on and on , but suffice it to say that courts aren't going to be easily convinced if the explanation isn't credible.
> This charge may be to discourage you from giving evidence helpful to the
> driver or to discredit if you do.
>
> Assuming, as is likely, that the death arose from driver's driving, he is
> looking at five to ten years.
>
>
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"
Ste
You'd need to set out the circumstances more fully for us to give even
vaguely accurate advice. I would also second other posters' advice
here which is that, when you go down the police station, the first
thing you say "I want to speak to a solicitor" and you *do not say
another word to the police* about the alleged offence until you have
spoken to your solicitor and discussed the matter with him.
As for bail, it will normally be granted as a matter of course - I
take it you don't have any colourful history with the police.
ne...@address.invalid
I'm very sorry if you feel misquoted and I apologise for it.
I simply copied the part to which I was responding.
Your full contribution is still visible two lines above.
GB
>
> You've changed your position slightly. Instead of "just deny that
> you knew" what you are saying is "if you didn't know it was stolen,
> then that's your defence and you should argue it.
How absolutely do you have to know it was stolen? How about turning a blind
eye and not asking questions when your mate turns up with an impossibly
flashy new set of wheels? If the charge depends on the degree of guilty
knowledge, I wouldn't suggest being too quick to plead guilty. Above all, I
would suggest being very careful in any interviews not to incriminate
yourself and definitely having legal representation.
To be frank, Todal, if you offered me a lift in your new car, you might be a
bit miffed if I asked you point-blank whether you had stolen it. A defence
for the OP along those lines might be quite hard to shake.
GB
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:nN6dnVPwnf1W2avX...@bt.com...
>> Best case is if you didn't know it was stolen (he said it was his
>> car, his mate's car, his dad's car that he could drive while they
>> were on holiday etc.).
>>
>> This won't wash if you were involved in the theft and / or you knew
>> the driver was drunk, underage, disqualified etc.
>
> And expect to be asked all sorts of questions about this.
> How and how long did you know the driver?
> If you do know him , what vehicles are you aware of him owning &
> driving.
> Were there any signs of the vehicle being stolen such as no cowling
> around the ignition.
> Do you know where he works and how much he earns - if you know he is
> unemployed then it calls into question his ability to own an
> expensive car.
You may have your doubts, but as a passenger how far are you expected to
enquire? I think you are/were in the Police, so it probably comes as second
nature to you to move from doubts about how someone afforded something to
suspicions about how it was obtained. I think the average man in the street
is more trusting.
Likewise, if a driver is drunk, how drunk does he have to be for the
passenger to be reasonably complicit? There are certain rules of politeness
that come into play here.
Richard Miller
ne...@address.invalid writes
Who knows what questions there might be about who drove the car at which
point, whether he was driving at any stage, whether he did anything to
distract the driver which led to the accident, etc?
This guy should not allow himself to be interviewed without a solicitor.
No matter what claims the police make as to how long it will take for
the solicitor to get there, or insinuations that if he had done nothing
seriously wrong he does not need a solicitor. The incident overall is
very serious, and he needs a lawyer there exclusively protecting his
rights.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<0fdb68e5-f601-4b19...@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>So whether the OP is going to be remanded in custody is going to depend
>on what the magistrates think of the OP - and he is in a better
>position to judge that than the rest of us.
>
>**HOWEVER** I would repeat the advice offered by others - see a
>solicitor. The plans to means-test Legal Aid for criminal charges have
>not yet been removed implemented.
AND will not apply in the police station, AND would almost certainly not
stop most 17 year olds from getting free legal aid anyway.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
writes
>The Todal wrote:
>> "Scavenger" <anyol...@tiscali.net> wrote in message
>>news:h154b5$8bj$2...@aioe.org...
>>> james313 wrote:
>>>> well tomorrow im going to the police station to be charged with allowing
>>>> myself to be carried in a stolen vehicle im 17, no prior
>>>>convictions. however the driver of the car is being
>>>> charged with death by wreckless driving.
>>>>
>>>> what's the worst case scenario for me ? could they remand me in custody
>>>> until trial ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Just deny that you knew it was stolen and have a jury trial.
>> This is extremely bad advice - even if it does pass moderation. If
>>he knew the car was stolen (and he hasn't actually said so) then he
>>probably ought to admit it, rather than prolong the trial and not get
>> As per the charter and moderation guidelines for this group: if your
>>question is important to you, please seek advice from a qualified
>>legal professional.
>> www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
>>
>
>"(and he hasn't actually said so)"
>
>You want a person to plead guilty just to get it over with and to make
>life easier for the court and prosecution?
>
>If he genuinely didn't know the car was stolen then he has a full and
>complete defense. Not 'bad advice' at all.
It is extremely bad advice. You have taken no account of whether he knew
it was stolen or not, and have advised "just deny that you knew it was
stolen". That advice could make the difference between the OP getting a
custodial sentence because he followed it, or a non-custodial sentence
by following Todal's advice.
But neither your advice nor Todal's, nor anything I say is an adequate
substitute for a lawyer acting directly for the OP, being with him in
the police station and representing him in Court.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Walker
> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>> And expect to be asked all sorts of questions about this.
>> How and how long did you know the driver?
>> If you do know him , what vehicles are you aware of him owning &
>> driving.
>> Were there any signs of the vehicle being stolen such as no cowling
>> around the ignition.
>> Do you know where he works and how much he earns - if you know he is
>> unemployed then it calls into question his ability to own an
>> expensive car.
>
> You may have your doubts, but as a passenger how far are you expected to
> enquire?
In practical terms, the burden rests upon the passenger to satisfy the court
that their claim of ignorance was plausible.
Scavenger
>>
>> If he genuinely didn't know the car was stolen then he has a full and
>> complete defense. Not 'bad advice' at all.
>
> It is extremely bad advice. You have taken no account of whether he knew
> it was stolen or not, and have advised "just deny that you knew it was
> stolen". That advice could make the difference between the OP getting a
> custodial sentence because he followed it, or a non-custodial sentence
> by following Todal's advice.
>
> But neither your advice nor Todal's, nor anything I say is an adequate
> substitute for a lawyer acting directly for the OP, being with him in
> the police station and representing him in Court.
Richard, You of all people should know that it is very easy for a person
to 'feel guilty' when in reality they are not. At no time did he say
that he KNEW the car was stolen.
Martin Bonner
Or more precisely, that there is reasonable doubt about whether they
knew the car was stolen.
Steve Firth
> The fact that Levy was not just the passenger but also the owner of
> the car was probably a big factor in the serious charge, right?
I'd guess so, because that would establish that he had willingly
permitted an unlicensed, uninsured driver to use his car and because he
was a passenger in the car at the time he was also a participant in the
killing and the serious injury.
Humbug
wrote:
>The Todal wrote:
>>
>> You've changed your position slightly. Instead of "just deny that
>> you knew" what you are saying is "if you didn't know it was stolen,
>> then that's your defence and you should argue it.
>
>How absolutely do you have to know it was stolen?
Did you read the subject line, and the OP?
--
Humbug
Humbug
Guilty until proven innocent?
--
Humbug
Humbug
wrote:
The subject line is a bit of a clue.
--
Humbug
Jon Ribbens
> But neither your advice nor Todal's, nor anything I say is an adequate
> substitute for a lawyer acting directly for the OP, being with him in
> the police station and representing him in Court.
I do think it should be something taught in schools - if interviewed
by the police as a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
entirely of "I demand legal representation". And if you're not sure
whether or not you're a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
entirely of "I demand legal representation".
james313
the car was my friends mothers , i was charged with something along the
lines of 'aggravated vehicle theft' the officer said basically just
allowing myself to be carried in a stolen vehicle knowingly.
im going to the youth courts and since its my first offence my lawyer
says im looking at most a referral order.
--
james313
Percy Picacity
news:3jsd35p7b02u69pp3...@4ax.com:
Not really, all this shows is that he *now* knows that the car was
stolen, not that he knew it at the time of the accident.
--
Percy Picacity
The Todal
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4a367cd3$0$18251$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> The Todal wrote:
>>
>> You've changed your position slightly. Instead of "just deny that
>> you knew" what you are saying is "if you didn't know it was stolen,
>> then that's your defence and you should argue it.
>
> How absolutely do you have to know it was stolen? How about turning a
> blind
> eye and not asking questions when your mate turns up with an impossibly
> flashy new set of wheels?
It has to be shown that he *knew* it was stolen. Obviously, if the driver
tells the police that he told you, it might be difficult to persuade a jury
that you were innocent.
If the charge depends on the degree of guilty
> knowledge, I wouldn't suggest being too quick to plead guilty.
Nobody is suggesting he should make a hasty decision.
> Above all, I
> would suggest being very careful in any interviews not to incriminate
> yourself and definitely having legal representation.
Too late. He was going to the police station to be charged. When charged,
you get the usual warning about anything you say will be taken down and may
be used in evidence. I expect the interviews had already taken place, days
before.
>
> To be frank, Todal, if you offered me a lift in your new car, you might be
> a
> bit miffed if I asked you point-blank whether you had stolen it. A defence
> for the OP along those lines might be quite hard to shake.
The OP hasn't suggested that he didn't know it was stolen. Lawyers work on
the basis of the actual facts (and what the defendant has already admitted
in his statements to the police) - they don't say to their client "I know,
let's argue that he rolled up in his new car and you hadn't a clue that it
was stolen - that should work".
The Todal
Good luck. He wasn't much of a friend, to get you into trouble like that.
You'll be more wary next time.
GB
>
>> Above all, I
>> would suggest being very careful in any interviews not to incriminate
>> yourself and definitely having legal representation.
>
> already taken place, days before.
Yes, agreed.
> The OP hasn't suggested that he didn't know it was stolen. Lawyers
> work on the basis of the actual facts (and what the defendant has
> already admitted in his statements to the police) - they don't say to
> their client "I know, let's argue that he rolled up in his new car
> and you hadn't a clue that it was stolen - that should work".
Whilst you are absolutely right here, we seem to be going in a circle.
Scavenger said plead not guilty and opt for a jury trial. You said "If he
knew
the car was stolen (and he hasn't actually said so) then he probably ought
to admit it,".
And my point was that this offence depends on the accused's state of mind at
the time. In practice, in a case like this, proving that depends entirely on
statements made voluntarily to the Police by the accused and the driver. On
the face of it, if the driver turned up in his mum's car, the passenger can
reasonably assume that the driver has permission and a simple written
statement to the Police would be quite sufficient to back that up. In other
words, if they had kept their traps shut at interview there would be no case
for the passenger to answer.
I am not sure that it is a good thing or a bad thing generally that
criminals often incriminate themselves during Police interviews.
mogga
wrote:
>You may have your doubts, but as a passenger how far are you expected to
>enquire?
I think you should generally know what sort of people you have as
friends and be able to make judgements based on information available
to you at the time.
Having the wrong friends is worse than having no friends.
> I think you are/were in the Police, so it probably comes as second
>nature to you to move from doubts about how someone afforded something to
>suspicions about how it was obtained. I think the average man in the street
>is more trusting.
>
>Likewise, if a driver is drunk, how drunk does he have to be for the
>passenger to be reasonably complicit? There are certain rules of politeness
>that come into play here.
>
>
>
>> I could go on and on , but suffice it to say that courts aren't going
>> to be easily convinced if the explanation isn't credible.
>>
>>> This charge may be to discourage you from giving evidence helpful to
>>> the driver or to discredit if you do.
>>>
>>> Assuming, as is likely, that the death arose from driver's driving,
>>> he is looking at five to ten years.
>
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk
Roland Perry
Jun 2009, james313 <james313...@legalbanter.co.uk> remarked:
>the car was my friends mothers , i was charged with something along the
>lines of 'aggravated vehicle theft' the officer said basically just
>allowing myself to be carried in a stolen vehicle knowingly.
Was it genuinely taken without the mother's permission, or was it "only"
uninsured for the son to drive? Did the friend regularly drive the car -
in which case you might reasonably think it was with permission.
--
Roland Perry
Dr Zoidberg
No , but what they can and sometimes do say is.
You have been arrested for <offence name>
The defences to <offence name> are......
And give the appropriate scenarios.
Their client can then pick the one they like the sound of and say "Yes , that's what happened".
I know that not all solicitors will work this way but some most definitely do.
Chris R
> by the police as a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
> entirely of "I demand legal representation". And if you're not sure
> whether or not you're a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
> entirely of "I demand legal representation".
Yes, the school system should definitely be dedicated to inciting hostility
towards the police, refusing to co-operate with the investigation of crime
and means of committing crimes and avoiding conviction for them. Perhaps we
should offer GCSE's in burglary, too.
Chris R
Tony
> Lawyers work on
> the basis of the actual facts (and what the defendant has already admitted
> in his statements to the police) - they don't say to their client "I know,
> let's argue that he rolled up in his new car and you hadn't a clue that it
> was stolen - that should work".
>
>
Oh they do.....
Tony
No it isn't. He could easily have found out the car was stolen only
after plod pulled the driver.
Tony
> the car was my friends mothers ,
BINGO!
The Todal
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sNudnYoxgJ0U5KrX...@brightview.co.uk...
I do think that it should be part of the national curriculum to give pupils
some sort of grounding in our legal system. They spend a lot of time
studying stuff that will never be any use to them, so they might as well
learn what sort of courts there are, what powers the police have, how to
solve a dispute by taking it to a civil court, how to argue a case (that is,
without expecting there to be an easy "right answer").
I was watching Ali McBeal last night, and as usual there was a scene with
lawyers arguing their case in a courtroom. What a lot of bollocks it was.
You'd get the impression that to win a case, you need rhetorical flourishes
and clever metaphors. Also, that the lawyers are perpetually distracted by
their love-lives, and take any criticism from the judge very personally.
Dr Zoidberg
> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:nN6dnVPwnf1W2avX...@bt.com...
>>> Best case is if you didn't know it was stolen (he said it was his
>>> car, his mate's car, his dad's car that he could drive while they
>>> were on holiday etc.).
>>>
>>> This won't wash if you were involved in the theft and / or you knew
>>> the driver was drunk, underage, disqualified etc.
>>
>> And expect to be asked all sorts of questions about this.
>> How and how long did you know the driver?
>> If you do know him , what vehicles are you aware of him owning &
>> driving.
>> Were there any signs of the vehicle being stolen such as no cowling
>> around the ignition.
>> Do you know where he works and how much he earns - if you know he is
>> unemployed then it calls into question his ability to own an
>> expensive car.
>
> You may have your doubts, but as a passenger how far are you expected to
> enquire?
Thinking back to the friends I had when I was that sort of age I knew quite clearly which ones had and hadn't passed a driving test , which ones had and hadn't got their own car or used their parents' vehicle and so on. For young adults this is the sort of thing you talk about.
If one of them had showed up in something I'd not seen before I'd have asked about it. Not because "I must check if this is stolen" but just from general curiousity. If the answers were obviously fishy then that would have set off alarm bells but if it was plausible - "My mum has bought a new car - this is it" then unless it was something very unusual such a a Nova being replaced with a shiny new BMW then I'd have accepted that at face value.
In the OP's case I believe he's said that it was his friend's mum's car , so if I'd known that friend had passed their test I'd have assumed he had permission to drive and got in.
If he'd not got a licence then obviously I'd refuse.
Where I (and a lot of other people) might have been caught out is the "friend of a friend" scenario where you know the passengers but not the driver. I'd like to think that I had sensible friends who didn't associate with car thieves but you never really know for sure.
For the OP - if you genuinely had no reason to believe that he wasn't legal to be driving the car then a not guilty plea would be the way to go in my opinion.
If your friend was 16 or there are other reasons why he obviously shouldn't have been driving then an early guilty plea makes sense.
> I think you are/were in the Police, so it probably comes as second
> nature to you to move from doubts about how someone afforded something to
> suspicions about how it was obtained. I think the average man in the street
> is more trusting.
Was , yes.
The Todal
"Tony" <tonybe...@tiscali.net> wrote in message
news:4a37764b$0$29137$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...
> james313 wrote:
>> the car was my friends mothers ,
>
> BINGO!
That's just an unfair stereotype. I'm sure she saved up and paid for it.
I think it goes without saying that if he didn't believe that the car was
stolen and had no good reason to form such a belief, he might have a good
defence. I don't expect him to lay all the facts before us for inspection.
He asked a question about sentencing. He has since seen a solicitor. If he
needs more advice about whether or not he ought to plead guilty, he has his
solicitor to ask, or he can ask here.
Unfortunately, in usenet there is a tendency for people to ignore the
question that has been asked and focus exclusively on a different angle
because that's the one they think they are better able to discuss.
Ben Harris
If demanding legal representation before answering questions constitutes
"hostility towards the police" then I fear something is already very
wrong.
--
Ben Harris
Roland Perry
Jun 2009, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>>> the car was my friends mothers ,
>>
>> BINGO!
>
>That's just an unfair stereotype. I'm sure she saved up and paid for it.
I'm getting a bit confused here.
Is there a suggestion that the mother stole the car, then lent it to the
son? Or did the son steal it from the mother (a strange concept - most
mothers would deny such a thing, even if true).
--
Roland Perry
The Todal
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8L0FH$r7O4N...@perry.co.uk...
I expect the son took the car without his mother's consent, then smashed it
up. He certainly caused death by reckless driving. In that scenario, the
mother would have to tell her insurers and the police the truth - that it
was taken without permission and therefore it was theft.
I would guess that he wasn't insured to drive it, otherwise she could have
covered for him and said it was driven with her permission.
I would also guess that the driver told his companion that his mother would
be angry if she knew he had taken the car, and would have made other remarks
such as "hope we don't get stopped by the police - I'm not even insured"
such as would have alerted him to the fact that it was taken without the
owner's permission. But the OP doesn't have to give us the full facts,
that's up to him.
GB
> Is there a suggestion that the mother stole the car, then lent it to
> the son? Or did the son steal it from the mother (a strange concept -
> most mothers would deny such a thing, even if true).
I am sure that the driver stole it from the mother (or at least that's
what's implied here). It's a problem for the mother if the kid was
under-age, disqualified, unlicensed, etc. She can hardly say that she
allowed her 16 year-old (say) to drive her car on the road, can she?
GB
>
> I would also guess that the driver told his companion that his mother
> would be angry if she knew he had taken the car, and would have made
> other remarks such as "hope we don't get stopped by the police - I'm
> not even insured" such as would have alerted him to the fact that it
> was taken without the owner's permission. But the OP doesn't have to
> give us the full facts, that's up to him.
If what you have said is correct, the OP would be completely daft to admit
it on a public forum.
Martin
I'm not sure what your point is there.
When I was young I drove my mum's car before I got my own, if she went
to work and left it at home I drove it. When I go and see my parents now
I still drive my dad's or mum's car while I'm there because I tend to
prefer to go by train so I can work on the journey.
If anyone said to me "want a lift? I've got my mum's car, she's at work"
I'd not think anything of it.
Roland Perry
Tue, 16 Jun 2009, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
If the offence is driving a *stolen* car without insurance etc, then
saying he had permission would change the offence to a lesser one,
presumably. I'm not sure if she then commits an offence of "permitting"
him to drive without insurance (but the emphasis so far has been upon
the passenger being the more culpable of that kind of offence).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>up. He certainly caused death by reckless driving. In that scenario, the
>mother would have to tell her insurers and the police the truth - that it
>was taken without permission and therefore it was theft.
TWOC rather than Theft (with a capital T), surely? But "stolen" perhaps
applies to both situations.
--
Roland Perry
Dr Zoidberg
>
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8L0FH$r7O4N...@perry.co.uk...
>> In message <79pd24F...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:20:10 on Tue, 16
>> Jun 2009, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>>>>> the car was my friends mothers ,
>>>>
>>>> BINGO!
>>>
>>>That's just an unfair stereotype. I'm sure she saved up and paid for it.
>>
>> I'm getting a bit confused here.
>>
>> Is there a suggestion that the mother stole the car, then lent it to the
>> son? Or did the son steal it from the mother (a strange concept - most
>> mothers would deny such a thing, even if true).
>
> I expect the son took the car without his mother's consent, then smashed it
> up. He certainly caused death by reckless driving.
He's been charged with that.
Whether he actually did is another matter
Roland Perry
Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
>> I expect the son took the car without his mother's consent, then smashed it
>> up. He certainly caused death by reckless driving. In that scenario, the
>> mother would have to tell her insurers and the police the truth - that it
>> was taken without permission and therefore it was theft.
>
Is the offence Theft+DeathByDangerousDriving|NoInsurance or would
TWOC+DBDD|NI be just as good?
--
Roland Perry
Dr Zoidberg
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:25:07 +0100, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I expect the son took the car without his mother's consent, then smashed it
>> up. He certainly caused death by reckless driving. In that scenario, the
>> mother would have to tell her insurers and the police the truth - that it
>> was taken without permission and therefore it was theft.
>
>
If it's the mother's car then I'd almost guarantee the absence of it.
Still for "being carried in....." the car can be in a state of TWOC rather than just stolen
Roland Perry
Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk>
remarked:
>>> I expect the son took the car without his mother's consent, then smashed it
>>> up. He certainly caused death by reckless driving. In that scenario, the
>>> mother would have to tell her insurers and the police the truth - that it
>>> was taken without permission and therefore it was theft.
>>
>> I would not infer the permanence necessary for theft.
>
>If it's the mother's car then I'd almost guarantee the absence of it.
>
>Still for "being carried in....." the car can be in a state of TWOC rather than just stolen
But what if the mother says he had permission. But let's assume he
wasn't insured. Does that mean she has committed an offence?
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
An equally credible scenario (sadly) is that the mother did give him
permission to drive it but is not prepared to say so to save her own
skin. It would make relatively little difference to the gravity of
this particular offence.
--
Percy Picacity
The Todal
"Martin" <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a3783dd$0$24015$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Presumably, though, either you or your mother (or both) made sure you were
covered by the motor insurance policy issued to your mother.
If not, then you may have been breaking the law.
Roland Perry
Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>An equally credible scenario (sadly) is that the mother did give him
>permission to drive it but is not prepared to say so to save her own
>skin. It would make relatively little difference to the gravity of
>this particular offence.
I was under the impression that the vehicle being allegedly stolen upped
the ante quite a lot. Although presumably the main intention of the law
was to punish joy-riders, rather than those 'borrowing' a family car.
--
Roland Perry
Cynic
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>Still for "being carried in....." the car can be in a state of
>>>TWOC rather than just stolen
>>
>> But what if the mother says he had permission. But let's assume he
>> wasn't insured. Does that mean she has committed an offence?
>
>An equally credible scenario (sadly) is that the mother did give him
>permission to drive it but is not prepared to say so to save her own
>skin. It would make relatively little difference to the gravity of
>this particular offence.
A "way out" is for the mother to state that she did not give
permission, but she can with hindsight understand how her son may have
*believed* that he had (implied) permission. The son in turn states
that he believed that he had permission to take the vehicle.
The position then is that the mother is not guilty of allowing to
drive without insurance as she did not give permission, but the son
cannot be convicted of TWOC because he had an honest belief that he
*did* have permission.
--
Cynic
Ian
> I expect the son took the car without his mother's consent, then smashed it
> up.
There is a long tradition of teenagers stealing their parents' cars at
night for a bit of high speed fun - it's a regular feature of local
papers. Happened in a group of my contemporaries at school, ending in
a BMW on its roof in a ditch with an unconscious 16 year old inside
and the driver trying to do a runner across fields.
Ian
Percy Picacity
This particular case involves a death and an uninsured driver already,
TWOC seems peripheral to me.
--
Percy Picacity
Tony
Or because they can see that a defence is possible which any good
solicitor worth his salts should be looking for.
Tony
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8L0FH$r7O4N...@perry.co.uk...
>> In message <79pd24F...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:20:10 on Tue, 16
>> Jun 2009, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>>>>> the car was my friends mothers ,
>>>> BINGO!
>>> That's just an unfair stereotype. I'm sure she saved up and paid for it.
>> I'm getting a bit confused here.
>>
>> Is there a suggestion that the mother stole the car, then lent it to the
>> son? Or did the son steal it from the mother (a strange concept - most
>> mothers would deny such a thing, even if true).
>
> I expect the son took the car without his mother's consent,
And how would the passenger know this? All they would know is that their
friend has lent their mums car.
I sometimes lend my kids cars. I don't expect my passengers to ask me if
I have it with their permission when they get in.
Tony
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:25:07 +0100, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>> up. He certainly caused death by reckless driving. In that scenario, the
>> mother would have to tell her insurers and the police the truth - that it
>> was taken without permission and therefore it was theft.
>
>
>
IIRC TWOC was a charge brought in during the 60s as defendants starting
getting not guiltys when some bright eyed solicitor realised the lack of
the 'permanent' aspect of the theft act.
Dumping a car when the petrol ran out was not permanently depriving the
owner.
Tony
> Tony wrote:
>> james313 wrote:
>>> the car was my friends mothers ,
>>
>> BINGO!
>
> I'm not sure what your point is there.
>
> If anyone said to me "want a lift? I've got my mum's car, she's at work"
> I'd not think anything of it.
Yes that is exactly my point.
Tony
>> I do think it should be something taught in schools - if interviewed
>> by the police as a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
>> entirely of "I demand legal representation". And if you're not sure
>> whether or not you're a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
>> entirely of "I demand legal representation".
>
> Yes, the school system should definitely be dedicated to inciting hostility
> towards the police, refusing to co-operate with the investigation of crime
> and means of committing crimes and avoiding conviction for them. Perhaps we
> should offer GCSE's in burglary, too.
>
You *really* think that the police go into schools to help kids?
Roland Perry
>>>An equally credible scenario (sadly) is that the mother did give
>>>him permission to drive it but is not prepared to say so to save
>>>her own skin. It would make relatively little difference to the
>>>gravity of this particular offence.
>>
>> I was under the impression that the vehicle being allegedly stolen
>> upped the ante quite a lot. Although presumably the main intention
>> of the law was to punish joy-riders, rather than those 'borrowing'
>> a family car.
>
>This particular case involves a death and an uninsured driver already,
>TWOC seems peripheral to me.
There seemed to be a suggestion that the "stolen vehicle" aspect was a
significantly aggravating factor. But if not, then I'm happy to be put
straight.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Tony <tonybe...@tiscali.net> remarked:
>> I expect the son took the car without his mother's consent,
>
>And how would the passenger know this? All they would know is that
>their friend has lent their mums car.
>
>I sometimes lend my kids cars. I don't expect my passengers to ask me
>if I have it with their permission when they get in.
My wife and I both have a car separately insured (and with each other as
named driver), but I've never been asked if I was driving with anyone's
permission, or insurance. Maybe I have an honest face :)
Or would the law say they were jointly owned (irrespective of what it
says on the V5 and the insurance certificates)?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>You *really* think that the police go into schools to help kids?
Community Officers go in to help the ones who are threatened by
intruders and weapons, yes.
--
Roland Perry
Martin
that I didn't get. I'd have thought it was common for youngsters to
drive their parents' cars as I did.
Maybe Tony could elucidate what he meant because to me if my mate had
given me a ride in a car and said "It's my mum's" I wouldn't have
assumed it was stolen even if something bad happened.
Old Codger
Ah! the pretend police. :-)
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Old Codger
>
> Perhaps we should offer GCSE's in burglary, too.
Given the present state of the education system that might actually be a
good idea. They would probably pass the exams but fail the practical
totally. :-)
Richard Miller
<tonybe...@tiscali.net> writes
>The Todal wrote:
>> Lawyers work on the basis of the actual facts (and what the
>>defendant has already admitted in his statements to the police) -
>>they don't say to their client "I know, let's argue that he rolled up
>>in his new car and you hadn't a clue that it was stolen - that should
>>work".
>
>Oh they do.....
Proof please.
Not just "Well, everyone knows they do". Not "I heard it from a mate
down the pub." Not "It was on the Bill, it must be true".
Hard evidence.
And authority for me to pass it to the SRA to get the individual
concerned struck off.
--
Richard Miller
Roland Perry
Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Old Codger <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> remarked:
>>> You *really* think that the police go into schools to help kids?
>> Community Officers go in to help the ones who are threatened by
>>intruders and weapons, yes.
>
>Ah! the pretend police. :-)
No real policemen, whose job/beat is in the community. If I'd meant PCSO
I'd have said so!
--
Roland Perry
Scavenger
The petrol however WAS intentionally and permanently removed from its
rightful owner though which would have made a theft charge stick.
Scavenger
Yes of course they do <cough cough>
Steve Walker
> On 2009-06-15, Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> But neither your advice nor Todal's, nor anything I say is an adequate
>> substitute for a lawyer acting directly for the OP, being with him in
>> the police station and representing him in Court.
>
> I do think it should be something taught in schools - if interviewed
> by the police as a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
> entirely of "I demand legal representation". And if you're not sure
> whether or not you're a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
> entirely of "I demand legal representation".
The principle is right, but the slightly "Wolfie Smith" delivery really
isn't necessary... :o)
They will be repeatedly asked if they want a solicitor, so they need only to
say "yes please, I would like to talk to a lawyer before being interviewed"
and then wait in their cell with a maxpax soup until the duty brief arrives.
Steve Walker
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:55:05 +0100, Martin Bonner
> <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 15, 7:45 pm, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>> GB wrote:
>>>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>>>> And expect to be asked all sorts of questions about this.
>>>>> How and how long did you know the driver?
>>>>> If you do know him , what vehicles are you aware of him owning &
>>>>> driving.
>>>>> Were there any signs of the vehicle being stolen such as no cowling
>>>>> around the ignition.
>>>>> Do you know where he works and how much he earns - if you know he is
>>>>> unemployed then it calls into question his ability to own an
>>>>> expensive car.
>>>
>>>> You may have your doubts, but as a passenger how far are you expected
>>>> to enquire?
>>>
>>> In practical terms, the burden rests upon the passenger to satisfy the
>>> court that their claim of ignorance was plausible.
>>
>> Or more precisely, that there is reasonable doubt about whether they
>> knew the car was stolen.
>
> Guilty until proven innocent?
Yes, there's an element of that but it's practically unavoidable.
Imagine a stolen car crashes, four young men jump out of the wreckage and
try to escape. Upon apprehension they all claim to have been unsuspecting
passengers, and that they cannot recall which of the others was actually
driving it. Would the public interest be served by allowing this to
become a successful line of defence for joyriders? Seems to me that the
judiciary are right to expect some plausibility be established by a
defendant.
Old Codger
Ok. Community Officers usually implies PCSO.
GB
>
> A "way out" is for the mother to state that she did not give
> permission, but she can with hindsight understand how her son may have
> *believed* that he had (implied) permission. The son in turn states
> that he believed that he had permission to take the vehicle.
>
> The position then is that the mother is not guilty of allowing to
> drive without insurance as she did not give permission, but the son
> cannot be convicted of TWOC because he had an honest belief that he
> *did* have permission.
Or the son nags to be allowed to use the car and gets the answer "yes, but
you'll have to arrange to insure yourself". This really means "no", of
course.
Jon Ribbens
>> I do think it should be something taught in schools - if interviewed
>> by the police as a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
>> entirely of "I demand legal representation". And if you're not sure
>> whether or not you're a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
>> entirely of "I demand legal representation".
>
> towards the police, refusing to co-operate with the investigation of crime
That's all lovely, but I didn't say anything of the sort.
Jon Ribbens
> They will be repeatedly asked if they want a solicitor, so they need only to
> say "yes please, I would like to talk to a lawyer before being interviewed"
> and then wait in their cell with a maxpax soup until the duty brief arrives.
If you're trying to say that the police will always advise suspects of
their right to a solicitor in a supportive or at least neutral way,
then I'm afraid I don't believe that's true.
Clot
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:sNudnYoxgJ0U5KrX...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> I do think it should be something taught in schools - if interviewed
>>> by the police as a suspect, your answer should consist solely and
>>> entirely of "I demand legal representation". And if you're not sure
>>> whether or not you're a suspect, your answer should consist solely
>>> and entirely of "I demand legal representation".
>>
>> Yes, the school system should definitely be dedicated to inciting
>> hostility
>> towards the police, refusing to co-operate with the investigation of
>> crime and means of committing crimes and avoiding conviction for
>> them. Perhaps we
>> should offer GCSE's in burglary, too.
>
> pupils some sort of grounding in our legal system. They spend a lot
> of time studying stuff that will never be any use to them, so they
> might as well learn what sort of courts there are, what powers the
> police have, how to solve a dispute by taking it to a civil court,
> how to argue a case (that is, without expecting there to be an easy
> "right answer").
>
Snipped
I heartily agree with this.
My wife unfortunately was confused during road works on an extremely busy
roundabout being involved in a contact accident only which ended up with her
having to defend her situation in court with me being present. Our income at
the time was such that we could not get public financial support or afford a
solicitor for her. She was pleading mitigation whilst admitting guilty, (OK
I may have got my terminology wrong here). Incidentally, initial evidence
that the police had taken was incorrect and we advised them of this,
(wittingly at the time which we knew was to her detriment) . She was not
advised of the date of the case but subsequently received a letter from the
Court that put up our anxiety levels rather a lot accusing her of not being
present at the hearing.
I had taken various photos of the location of the accident and also found
out from the recovery firm that there were numerous accidents per day during
the roadworks. My wife was so overawed by what she faced in court that she
could not adequately present her case. Evidence that I had prepared, she
failed to explain. When I tried to assist, my assistance was deemed
inadmissible,(my approach to the court and its approach to me were both
polite and respectful). To this day, I do not know whether my assistance was
inadmissible. My wife at that time was a teacher of many years. I was an
articulate (and hope I still am!) individual with M.Sc. and Ph.D., various
professional qualifications and years of experience in chairing and speaking
at public meetings, presenting evidence to government and EC meetings. I was
daunted by the Court proceedings due to my lack of knowledge of court
procedures.
More recently and more relevant possibly to legal education in schools, a
son of ours was at the periphery of a racial incident. A friend of his of
white British origin was prosecuted whilst protecting a fellow scholar of
Asian descent from an Asian attacker not from the school but apparently from
an embittered group from a more impoverished area of India. The indigenous
guy was not a perpetrator by all accounts but was more easy to prosecute.
Ste
There will usually be some brief mention of your right to consult a
solicitor, but it's rarely the case that you'll be encouraged outright
to have a solicitor present. As a number of us here have now said, the
first and last thing out of the OP's mouth when he goes down the
station should be "I want to see a solicitor", and he should be
unequivocal about it.
Dave
Do you honestly believe it *never* happens?
Dave
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:40:04 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <h18bfo$ed3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, at 15:55:05 on
>> Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>>>> I expect the son took the car without his mother's consent, then smashed it
>>>>> up. He certainly caused death by reckless driving. In that scenario, the
>>>>> mother would have to tell her insurers and the police the truth - that it
>>>>> was taken without permission and therefore it was theft.
>>>> I would not infer the permanence necessary for theft.
>>>
>>> Still for "being carried in....." the car can be in a state of TWOC rather than just stolen
>> But what if the mother says he had permission. But let's assume he
>> wasn't insured. Does that mean she has committed an offence?
>
> Yes, RTA 1988 s.143(1)(b)
>
> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?&activetextdocid=2276786
>
> Tony
Presumably if she was sufficiently savvy she could tell the Police that
that permission was contingent on the son fulfilling his legal
requirements regarding insurance and so on.
If that was the case, how much 'diligence' should she undertake to
verify that he had indeed done that if he said he had?
Richard Miller
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> writes
It isn't. I talk to a lot of criminal lawyers from all over the country,
whose clients tell them of all sorts of tricks the police use to
dissuade them from having a solicitor.
There is an obligation to tell them, but it is often hedged with fake
concern about how long it will take the solicitor to get there.
Unfortunately, now that the police have to contact a call centre rather
than the named solicitor, additional substantial delays have been built
into the system. In a quarter to a third of all cases nationally, the
police fail to answer the phone when the solicitor tries to contact
their client.
--
Richard Miller
Roland Perry
Scavenger <anyol...@tiscali.net> remarked:
>> IIRC TWOC was a charge brought in during the 60s as defendants
>>starting getting not guiltys when some bright eyed solicitor realised
>>the lack of the 'permanent' aspect of the theft act.
>> Dumping a car when the petrol ran out was not permanently depriving
>>the owner.
>
>The petrol however WAS intentionally and permanently removed from its
>rightful owner though which would have made a theft charge stick.
But this possibility was not enough to prevent the need for a separate
TWOC offence, it seems.
ps There's also an offence of "driving away without paying" (or similar)
to catch clever defence lawyers in cases of "theft" of petrol from
filling stations.
--
Roland Perry
PCPaul
I read many of the legal/Police blogs. In every one of them this has come
up, and every time the consensus has been:
- Always have a solicitor
- Never accept a caution
Even for trivial things, even when you know you are clearly, provably not
guilty. Just Do It.