Cards stolen from wallet, to report?

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

And (the quotation marks are yours) 'attempting to commit an indictable offence' is an offence according to what statute?



If, while standing on the public footpath, I reach in to my neighbour's garden and pick a dandelion, is that theft?

It's contrary to common law.

Yes, the flower is not yours. If it's the back garden I would say it's burglary. Be a hard sell if it was the front garden I would think

There's no argument here. Look up the theft and fraud offences act 2001. Section 4. "a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it."

Removing the cards and throwing the wallet away, it's pretty clear in my opinion

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

Say I find a wallet containing credit cards which (unknown to me) have been cancelled, I remove them, pocket them and discard the wallet.

What (if any) crime have I committed?

Technically I think it would be a larceny, along the lines of depriving the rightful owner of their property, but as people have said, theft by finding.

Bank cards are valuable documents, convertible to cash or goods, even if they have been cancelled.

Anglice tantum responde.

Translation?

Samuel T. Cogley

Victor wrote: »

Translation?

English Answers Only

Victor

Victor wrote: »

Technically I think it would be a larceny, along the lines of depriving the rightful owner of their property, but as people have said, theft by finding.

Bank cards are valuable documents, convertible to cash or goods, even if they have been cancelled.

Translation?

Ah Victor, larceny. Your showing your age 😉

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Interesting and specific Mens Rea requirements though.

Removing just the cards and pocketing them while dumping the wallet meets in my opinion.

Proceeding with a charge on such a minor issue might not be recommended or approved but thats a different question

coylemj

My question (about taking cards which have been cancelled) relates to the issue of what is ‘property’.

If the item (the dandelion in my neighbour’s garden) has zero value then you’d assume that taking it does not constitute a crime. So what about a credit card or two which have been reported lost and which have been cancelled when I find them in a bus and take them? The bank doesn’t want them back and if the owner is ever reunited with them, they will slice them in two and toss them in the bin.

Bizarrely, the Theft Act 2001 uses the word ‘property’ in the definition so that’s no help. Dr. Johnson would not be pleased.

So come on folks, what is ‘property’?

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

My question (about taking cards which have been cancelled) relates to the issue of what is ‘property’.

If the item (the dandelion in my neighbour’s garden) has zero value then you’d assume that taking it does not constitute a crime. So what about a credit card or two which have been reported lost and which have been cancelled when I find them in a bus and take them? The bank doesn’t want them back and if the owner is ever reunited with them, they will slice them in two and toss them in the bin.

Bizarrely, the Theft Act 2001 uses the word ‘property’ in the definition so that’s no help. Dr. Johnson would not be pleased.

So come on folks, what is ‘property’?

There is no ingredient of value in section 4. No person needs to be financially down unlike section 6 and 7.

Property, dunno why your asking for suggestions when a dictionary will do just fine and where it doesn't, the courts will decide.

A physical bank card may not hold value but is not free to produce. As a result, the card company takes a financial hit when they are lost.

Your argument appears to be that you can only steal something that has monetary value but that's simple not required in the current account not did it appear in the common law larceny to my knowledge. It's owned by someone else, simple as.

coylemj

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Your argument appears to be that you can only steal something that has monetary value but that's simple not required in the current account not did it appear in the common law larceny to my knowledge. It's owned by someone else, simple as.

No need to go back to common law. Before the Theft Act 2001 was passed, the situation was clear: The Larceny Act 1916 (repealed by the Theft Act 2001) stated that something had to have 'value' to be capable of being stolen.

I'm simply asking if anyone knows if the legal meaning of the term 'property' (as used in the Theft Act 2001) has been trashed out in the courts. I appreciate that you're trying to contribute to the discussion but seriously, telling me to look it up in a dictionary doesn't help.

ohnonotgmail

coylemj wrote: »

No need to go back to common law. Before the Theft Act 2001 was passed, the situation was clear: The Larceny Act 1916 (repealed by the Theft Act 2001) stated that something had to have 'value' to be capable of being stolen.

I'm simply asking if anyone knows if the legal meaning of the term 'property' (as used in the Theft Act 2001) has been trashed out in the courts. I appreciate that you're trying to contribute to the discussion but seriously, telling me to look it up in a dictionary doesn't help.

absent any definition in the legislation the dictionary definition is the relevant one.

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

No need to go back to common law. Before the Theft Act 2001 was passed, the situation was clear: The Larceny Act 1916 (repealed by the Theft Act 2001) stated that something had to have 'value' to be capable of being stolen.

I'm simply asking if anyone knows if the legal meaning of the term 'property' (as used in the Theft Act 2001) has been trashed out in the courts. I appreciate that you're trying to contribute to the discussion but seriously, telling me to look it up in a dictionary doesn't help.

Granted but value need not be monetary. Sentimental comes into play. Possible future or possible value perhaps.

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

No need to go back to common law. Before the Theft Act 2001 was passed, the situation was clear: The Larceny Act 1916 (repealed by the Theft Act 2001) stated that something had to have 'value' to be capable of being stolen.

I'm simply asking if anyone knows if the legal meaning of the term 'property' (as used in the Theft Act 2001) has been trashed out in the courts. I appreciate that you're trying to contribute to the discussion but seriously, telling me to look it up in a dictionary doesn't help.

Actually, it does. If a term used in an Act isn't defined in the Act, and if it doesn't appear from the context to be used in some unusual, technical or specialist sense, then it has its ordinary meaning, and courts will readily have recourse to dictionaries to investigate the ordinary meaning of a word.

I'd understand "property" to mean a thing, whether concrete or abstract, that is capable of being owned and is in fact owned. A credit card can certainly be property; and I don't see that you would cease to own your credit cards when they expire, so an expired credit card would still be property. You may want to argue that in the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001, "property" refers only to valuable property, but I think it's an argument that has to be advanced, and not merely asserted.

I think this would be hard to argue, given that "property" is defined in s.2(1) as:

"money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property".

There's nothing there to support a narrow or exclusive reading. Furthermore s.2(4) reinforces the view that property and ownership are closely linked.

ozmo

coylemj wrote: »

If the item (the dandelion in my neighbour’s garden) has zero value then you’d assume that taking it does not constitute a crime.
...The bank doesn’t want them back... they will slice them in two and toss them in the bin.

Girl behind the counter of my bank broke my card once flexing and playing with it while she was handling it - i was on its last legs but she finished it off - they sent out a new one - but charged ME a Bank fee of 20 euros for the re-issue.
So there is a cost in replacing at least some of the cards.

Also - If my house keys were stolen - Id still rather i had them back to destroy myself even if the locks were changed rather than someone else I don't know have them...

Also - Ive no issue with wildflowers in my garden - I would take offence if someone went into my front garden and took them away!

coylemj

ozmo wrote: »

Girl behind the counter of my bank broke my card once flexing and playing with it while she was handling it - i was on its last legs but she finished it off - they sent out a new one - but charged ME a gov fee of 20 euros for the re-issue.

There is no 'govt. fee' on a replacement card, that was a bank charge.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, it does. If a term used in an Act isn't defined in the Act, and if it doesn't appear from the context to be used in some unusual, technical or specialist sense, then it has its ordinary meaning, and courts will readily have recourse to dictionaries to investigate the ordinary meaning of a word.

Yes, I'm aware of that but can I remind you that you used the plural - 'dictionaries' in your response. Clearly, there is more than one dictionary out there. Which means there is more than one definition of the word 'property'.

I'd have expected that after 19 years, there would by now have been a case where the exact meaning of the word was trashed out and defined for Irish criminal law. Or at least that some binary issues would have been addressed - does 'property' have to have value? does it have to be owned by a known individual? - those sorts of things. Which were stated in plain English in the Larceny Act 1916: 'Everything which has value and is the property of any person ...... shall be capable of being stolen'

Yet those issues were left wide open in 2001, seeing as how the parliamentary draughtsmen got away with the cardinal sin of lexicography by including the word 'property' in it's own definition.

nuac

Mod
Title amended

ozmo

coylemj wrote: »

There is no 'govt. fee' on a replacement card, that was a bank charge.

updated - but that makes it even worse - I paid the bank for the cashiers mistake - when she said "oops" I'll have a new one sent out - didnt expect Id be charged - long time ago when I was a full time student at the time and that 20 mattered back then.

Claw Hammer

coylemj wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of that but can I remind you that you used the plural - 'dictionaries' in your response. Clearly, there is more than one dictionary out there. Which means there is more than one definition of the word 'property'.

I'd have expected that after 19 years, there would by now have been a case where the exact meaning of the word was trashed out and defined for Irish criminal law. Or at least that some binary issues would have been addressed - does 'property' have to have value? does it have to be owned by a known individual? - those sorts of things. Which were stated in plain English in the Larceny Act 1916: 'Everything which has value and is the property of any person ...... shall be capable of being stolen'

Yet those issues were left wide open in 2001, seeing as how the parliamentary draughtsmen got away with the cardinal sin of lexicography by including the word 'property' in it's own definition.

It has long been established that property has to be owned by a know individual. DPP v. Valentine [2009] 4 IR 33
In order to steal one must appropriate the property of another, therefore the prosecution must establish who the other is and it is not the person charged. In most cases if something is of a de minimis value there won't be a charge proferred and the courts won't therefore be asked to rule on the issue. There isn't going to be a case stated to the High Court over someone taking a used match for example.
Anyway, the individual could have be charged with theft of the allet istlef since they must have had it in order to remove the cards.
All of this will never happen unless the o/p complains. The bus company don't even know if there was a theft and can't give any admissible evidence of theft. The guards wouldn't entertain a complaint from the bus company. Without a complaint there will be no investigation. The o/p would not be obliged to make a statement even if there was an investigation.

coylemj

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It has long been established that property has to be owned by a know individual. DPP v. Valentine [2009] 4 IR 33

Thank you, that is precisely the type of information I was looking for.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Anyway, the individual could have be charged with theft of the allet istlef since they must have had it in order to remove the cards.

In order to steal something, you have to have the intention of 'depriving its owner of it'. After the cards were removed and the wallet thrown back on the floor of the bus, let's say it sat on the floor for an hour before an honest individual picked it up and handed it to the driver. Now let's say that within that hour, ten people picked the wallet off the floor and, seeing that it was empty, threw it back on the floor. Based on what you're saying, all of them are guilty of theft.

The wallet itself was never stolen.

Claw Hammer

coylemj wrote: »

Thank you, that is precisely the type of information I was looking for.



In order to steal something, you have to have the intention of 'depriving its owner of it'. After the cards were removed and the wallet thrown back on the floor of the bus, let's say it sat on the floor for an hour before an honest individual picked it up and handed it to the driver. Now let's say that within that hour, ten people picked the wallet off the floor and, seeing that it was empty, threw it back on the floor. Based on what you're saying, all of them are guilty of theft.

The wallet itself was never stolen.

The thief intended to deprive the owner of the wallet for as long as it took to steal the cards. That is sufficient. The requirement to permanently the owner deprive did not survive the passing of the 2001 Act. You were taught the Larceny Act of 1916 which was changed considerably by the 2001 Act which was heavily influenced by the English 1968 and 1978 Theft acts.

ohnonotgmail

coylemj wrote: »

Thank you, that is precisely the type of information I was looking for.



In order to steal something, you have to have the intention of 'depriving its owner of it'. After the cards were removed and the wallet thrown back on the floor of the bus, let's say it sat on the floor for an hour before an honest individual picked it up and handed it to the driver. Now let's say that within that hour, ten people picked the wallet off the floor and, seeing that it was empty, threw it back on the floor. Based on what you're saying, all of them are guilty of theft.

The wallet itself was never stolen.

it wasnt, assuming that the OP did indeed leave it behind by accident. the cards were stolen though.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it wasnt, assuming that the OP did indeed leave it behind by accident. the cards were stolen though.

How did the cards get out of the wallet?

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

How did the cards get out of the wallet?

well going by what the OP said somebody found their wallet, removed the cards, and put the wallet back on the floor. On those facts i dont see any intention to deprive the OP of the wallet itself.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well going by what the OP said somebody found their wallet, removed the cards, and put the wallet back on the floor. On those facts i dont see any intention to deprive the OP of the wallet itself.

How could they get the cards out without having the intention of holding the wallet for long enough to take out the cards? The wallet was dishonestly appropriated.
From the Theft Act 2001.
4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.
“depriving” means temporarily or permanently depriving

The wallet was stolen. the fact that it was discarded later is irrelevant.

coylemj

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The wallet was stolen. the fact that it was discarded later is irrelevant.

But can the action of lifting a lost wallet from the floor of a bus constitute theft?

If a thief lifts a wallet from a pocket or handbag, we can all accept that it had been stolen, even if it was subsequently discarded. But all we know is that someone found the OP's wallet on the bus, searched the contents, lifted the cards and then discarded the wallet.

Go back to the question I asked earlier, if 10 people later lifted the (now empty) wallet, checked the contents and then discarded it, were they all guilty of theft? Because in relation to the wallet alone, they did exactly the same thing as the guy who took the cards.

Claw Hammer

coylemj wrote: »

But can the action of lifting a lost wallet from the floor of a bus constitute theft?

If the thief had lifted the wallet from a pocket or handbag, I could accept that it had been stolen, even if it was subsequently discarded.

If someone lifts a wallet from the floor of a bus with the intention of searching it for items of interest, that is a dishonest appropriation. If someone lifts a wallet from the floor of a bus with the intention of finding returning it to the true owner that is not dishonest.

coylemj wrote: »

Go back to the question I asked earlier, if 10 people later lifted the (now empty) wallet, checked the contents and then discarded it, were they all guilty of theft? Because in relation to the wallet alone, they did exactly the same thing as the guy who took the cards.

As above. any number of people could be guilty of the same item if they each dishonestly appropriate it.

Claw Hammer

To take this a stage further. If someone enters your house as a trespasser with the intention of stealing anything that person is a burglar. If that person leaves without stealing anything and 5 minutes later another person appears and enters as a trespasser with the same object, that person is also a burglar. there is no limit to the number of burglars who could attend at the same premises without actually stealing anything.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

To take this a stage further. If someone enters your house as a trespasser with the intention of stealing anything that person is a burglar. If that person leaves without stealing anything and 5 minutes later another person appears and enters as a trespasser with the same object, that person is also a burglar. there is no limit to the number of burglars who could attend at the same premises without actually stealing anything.

But there needs to be intent. Picking up the wallet and looking inside could be the act of a possible good Samaritan but finding it empty of Id gives up.

coylemj

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If someone lifts a wallet from the floor of a bus with the intention of searching it for items of interest, that is a dishonest appropriation. If someone lifts a wallet from the floor of a bus with the intention of finding returning it to the true owner that is not dishonest.

As above. any number of people could be guilty of the same item if they each dishonestly appropriate it.

But unless the person takes someting from the wallet, it's impossible to prove their intentions.

The logic of what you're saying is that if I lift the wallet from the floor of the bus and examine it, I am guilty of theft if I discard it but not guilty if I hand it to the driver.

Doesn't my guilt or innocence depend on my intentions at the time I lifted the wallet off the floor and not my subsequent action or inaction? And how is anyone to prove my intentions?

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

How could they get the cards out without having the intention of holding the wallet for long enough to take out the cards? The wallet was dishonestly appropriated.
From the Theft Act 2001.
4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.
“depriving” means temporarily or permanently depriving

The wallet was stolen. the fact that it was discarded later is irrelevant.

If the wallet was sitting on the seat of the bus, then picking it up & looking inside is not, imo, any intention of depriving the owner of it.

Just because something is lying on a bus does not mean it even has an owner. It may have been discarded, perhaps dumped by someone who no longer wanted it.

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of that but can I remind you that you used the plural - 'dictionaries' in your response. Clearly, there is more than one dictionary out there. Which means there is more than one definition of the word 'property'.

I'd have expected that after 19 years, there would by now have been a case where the exact meaning of the word was trashed out and defined for Irish criminal law. Or at least that some binary issues would have been addressed - does 'property' have to have value? does it have to be owned by a known individual? - those sorts of things. Which were stated in plain English in the Larceny Act 1916: 'Everything which has value and is the property of any person ...... shall be capable of being stolen'

Yet those issues were left wide open in 2001, seeing as how the parliamentary draughtsmen got away with the cardinal sin of lexicography by including the word 'property' in it's own definition.

Couple of thoughts, in no particular order:

1. It's not inherent in the concept of "property" that property must have value. If it were, the provision in the Larceny Act that property could only be stolen if it had value would have been redundant.

2. If the repealed legislation Act provided that property could only be stolen if it had value and the replacement legislation contains no such limitation, that fairly clearly manifests a legislative intention not to limit the theft offence in the way that the old larceny offence was limited. So I don't think there's much mileage in the argument that you can't steal property unless it is "valuable" property.

3. That might explain why the issue has never been judicially addressed; nobody raises the argument because it's not a runner. Other possible explanations are; (a) nobody steals property with no value, or (b) all property has some value, or (c) the very fact that the owner complains about the property being taken demonstrates that it does have value, at any rate to the owner. (Did the Larceny Act define "value"?)

4. You ask, does the property have to be owned by a known individual? The Larceny Act didn't resolve this question; it provided that a thing could be stolen if it was the property of any person, and that stealing it required an intention to deprive the owner of it, but in neither case did it provided that the owner had to be identified. And the same is true of the 2001 Act; you can't steal property which doesn't have an owner, but you don't have to identify the owner in order to secure a conviction. (It wouldn't arise very often, but you could have a case of theft where A is charged with the theft of property whose ownership is in dispute between B and C. It would be no defence for A to show that the ownership dispute bewteen B and C was unresolved at the time he took the property.)

Claw Hammer

bubblypop wrote: »

If the wallet was sitting on the seat of the bus, then picking it up & looking inside is not, imo, any intention of depriving the owner of it.

Just because something is lying on a bus does not mean it even has an owner. It may have been discarded, perhaps dumped by someone who no longer wanted it.

You are not addressing the mens rea of the offence. Therer is no doubt that picking up the wallet is an appropriation. The issue is if there is dishonesty in so doing. If the purpose is to look inside for items of value for the purpose of stealing such items then it is dishonest. If the purpose of looking in the wallet is to try and identify the owner for the purpose of returning it , then the appropriation is not dishonest. Whether the wallet was discarded or not does not make a difference.

Claw Hammer

coylemj wrote: »

But unless the person takes someting from the wallet, it's impossible to prove their intentions.

Not necessarily. I any event difficulty of proof does not mean that an offence as committed, merely that it might bot be worth charging someone.

coylemj wrote: »

The logic of what you're saying is that if I lift the wallet from the floor of the bus and examine it, I am guilty of theft if I discard it but not guilty if I hand it to the driver.

No. it depends on you intentions at the time you appropriate the wallet.

coylemj wrote: »

Doesn't my guilt or innocence depend on my intentions at the time I lifted the wallet off the floor and not my subsequent action or inaction? And how is anyone to prove my intentions?

Intention is proven by offering evidence of what happened to the tribunal of fact (judge or jury) as the case may be and inviting the tribunal to draw inferences consistent with your proposition that the accused commited the offence charged. Same as with any offence.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

4. You ask, does the property have to be owned by a known individual? The Larceny Act didn't resolve this question; it provided that a thing could be stolen if it was the property of any person, and that stealing it required an intention to deprive the owner of it, but in neither case did it provided that the owner had to be identified. And the same is true of the 2001 Act; you can't steal property which doesn't have an owner, but you don't have to identify the owner in order to secure a conviction.

I take your points on the issue of 'value' but poster CLaw Hammer informs us that there is a (post 2001) case which states that the goods in question must be owned by a known individual....

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It has long been established that property has to be owned by a know individual. DPP v. Valentine [2009] 4 IR 33

I'm guessing that the reason for this is that if the owner is unknown, the prosecution in a case of theft cannot prove that the accused did not own or have a legal right to be in possession of the goods alleged to have been stolen.

Mr. Valentine was a shoplifter who stole a tool from A DIY chain. The store company was named on the charge sheet as the owner but no evidence was tendered as to the legal existence of that entity. A case was stated to the High Court in which the District Justice asked if she was correct in convicting in the absence of proof as to the identity of the owner. The HC replied in the negative.

Theft Offences: Valentine v DPP [2007] IEHC 267:

The prosecution must prove that the stolen property in question was owned by a particular other person/legal person.

P. 19 here ... https://www.lawlibrary.ie/media/lawlibrary/media/Secure/20141124CriminalPracticeAndProcedureNPPStoran.pdf

Claw Hammer

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

But there needs to be intent. Picking up the wallet and looking inside could be the act of a possible good Samaritan but finding it empty of Id gives up.

That would be a matter for the tribunal of fact. If the person accused was shown a recording of them picking it up and made a cautioned statement admitting that the picked it up to look for items of value the prosecution would succeed.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Couple of thoughts, in no particular order:

1. It's not inherent in the concept of "property" that property must have value. If it were, the provision in the Larceny Act that property could only be stolen if it had value would have been redundant.

2. If the repealed legislation Act provided that property could only be stolen if it had value and the replacement legislation contains no such limitation, that fairly clearly manifests a legislative intention not to limit the theft offence in the way that the old larceny offence was limited. So I don't think there's much mileage in the argument that you can't steal property unless it is "valuable" property.

value has to be proven in prosecutions for 2 reasons.
1. In order to establish jurisdiction. In the District Court the consent of te DPP is required to prosecute for theft. The district Judge must be satisfied that he has jurisdiction to try the case. if there is no evidence of value he can't decide the issue.
2. sentence. The value of the item stolen is a factor in sentencing.
[/QUOTE]value has to be proven in prosecutions for 2 reasons.
3. That might explain why the issue has never been judicially addressed; nobody raises the argument because it's not a runner. Other possible explanations are; (a) nobody steals property with no value, or (b) all property has some value, or (c) the very fact that the owner complains about the property being taken demonstrates that it does have value, at any rate to the owner. (Did the Larceny Act define "value"?)

Peregrinus wrote: »

4. You ask, does the property have to be owned by a known individual? The Larceny Act didn't resolve this question; it provided that a thing could be stolen if it was the property of any person, and that stealing it required an intention to deprive the owner of it, but in neither case did it provided that the owner had to be identified. And the same is true of the 2001 Act; you can't steal property which doesn't have an owner, but you don't have to identify the owner in order to secure a conviction. (It wouldn't arise very often, but you could have a case of theft where A is charged with the theft of property whose ownership is in dispute between B and C. It would be no defence for A to show that the ownership dispute bewteen B and C was unresolved at the time he took the property.)

The Valetine case has established that evidence of ownership must be established. It is not sufficient to say that A is the owner. Positive evidence must be offered because it is an element of the actus reus of the offence. In the event of a dispute oer ownership the prosecution would have to give evidence that either b or C is the owner to the exclusion of any possible claim to the item by A.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You are not addressing the mens rea of the offence. Therer is no doubt that picking up the wallet is an appropriation. The issue is if there is dishonesty in so doing. If the purpose is to look inside for items of value for the purpose of stealing such items then it is dishonest. If the purpose of looking in the wallet is to try and identify the owner for the purpose of returning it , then the appropriation is not dishonest. Whether the wallet was discarded or not does not make a difference.

And yet if there is no owner for the item, then no theft occurred.
You cannot prove intent of either scenario. Neither can you prove theft without an owner for the property.
Many people can lift the wallet, look inside & discard, no offence has occurred.
If a person took the wallet, to a different location, looked inside & discarded elsewhere, then there is an intent & a theft occurred.

Claw Hammer

bubblypop wrote: »

And yet if there is no owner for the item, then no theft occurred.
You cannot prove intent of either scenario. Neither can you prove theft without an owner for the property.
Many people can lift the wallet, look inside & discard, no offence has occurred.
If a person took the wallet, to a different location, looked inside & discarded elsewhere, then there is an intent & a theft occurred.

You are now talking about proof rather than law. Who knows what evidence might be available? The fact of an appropriation has occurred. There is no need for the wallet to be transposed for an offence to occur. It may help to prove dishonesty if the wallet was transposed but it is not an essential.
It often happens that thefts are committed by habitual thieves. When they're caught red-handed committing a theft they often admit, under caution to other thefts when it is put to them that they are on CCTV doing something.
It is a fallacy the difficulty in proving an offence does not mean that an offence was not committed.

Peregrinus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You are not addressing the mens rea of the offence. Therer is no doubt that picking up the wallet is an appropriation . . .

There certainly is. To appropriate something it to assert or assign ownership of it. It is plainly not the case that simply picking something up is an assertion of ownership.

Peregrinus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

value has to be proven in prosecutions for 2 reasons.
1. In order to establish jurisdiction. In the District Court the consent of te DPP is required to prosecute for theft. The district Judge must be satisfied that he has jurisdiction to try the case. if there is no evidence of value he can't decide the issue.
2. sentence. The value of the item stolen is a factor in sentencing.

I accept both those points. But the fact that value affects the court's jursidction and is a factor to be considered in sentencing doesn't mean that it's an element of the offence.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The Valetine case has established that evidence of ownership must be established. It is not sufficient to say that A is the owner. Positive evidence must be offered because it is an element of the actus reus of the offence. In the event of a dispute oer ownership the prosecution would have to give evidence that either b or C is the owner to the exclusion of any possible claim to the item by A.

Fair enough. But my point stands; the prosecution has to prove that someone (other than the defendant) own the thing alleged to have been stolen, but does not have to prove who that is. "One or more of this group of persons" is sufficient.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

There certainly is. To appropriate something it to assert or assign ownership of it. It is plainly not the case that simply picking something up is an assertion of ownership.

It is clearly the case. To appropriate is to treat something as ones own. Picking up the wallet is treating it as ones own even temporarily.

coylemj

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is clearly the case. To appropriate is to treat something as ones own. Picking up the wallet is treating it as ones own even temporarily.

By that logic, even the person who picked up the wallet and handed it to the driver was guilty of theft. Because nobody can say what they would have done if it had contained a wad of cash. Maybe they only handed it over because it was empty.

What you're effectively saying is that nobody other than the cleaning squad in the garage can touch it.

TheBoyConor

fantastic98 wrote: »

Thanks for that. Just worried bus people might want to see on their CCTV who did it .

Me bollix they would. Why would they?

And don't be getting excited about the Gardaí and charges and all that. No-one gives a shít and no-one will be investigating or searching anything.

Cancel the cards, get new ones and carry on with your life and don't be getting so anxious about it. And in future just keep you wallet and don't be forgetting it on busses. For all we know the bus driver might have swiped the cards before handing it in. It doesn't really matter anyway.

Don't be worrying your pretty little head.

TheBoyConor

fantastic98 wrote: »

Thanks. That's reassuring. I was just wondering why he said he would phone me back.

To get rid of you.

Claw Hammer

coylemj wrote: »

By that logic, even the person who picked up the wallet and handed it to the driver was guilty of theft. Because nobody can say what they would have done if it had contained a wad of cash. Maybe they only handed it over because it was empty.

.

That is not the case. The appropriation has to be dishonest for it to be theft. There is a presumption of innocence, the person who handed it over doesn't have to justify why they did it. It is a question of fact as to whether the appropriation amounted to theft. Crime has two elements, Actus reus and mens rea. Albert Pierrepoint committed the actus reus for murder many times, but never had the mens rea.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is not the case. The appropriation has to be dishonest for it to be theft. There is a presumption of innocence, the person who handed it over doesn't have to justify why they did it. It is a question of fact as to whether the appropriation amounted to theft. Crime has two elements, Actus reus and mens rea. Albert Pierrepoint committed the actus reus for murder many times, but never had the mens rea.

Pierrepoint certainly killed many people but he never murdered anybody.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Pierrepoint certainly killed many people but he never murdered anybody.

I think I got it backways. In fact he never committed the actus reus but always had the mens rea.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I think I got it backways. In fact he never committed the actus reus but always had the mens rea.

he never had the mens rea for murder. he never intended to commit murder. he knew what he was doing was state sanctioned.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he never had the mens rea for murder. he never intended to commit murder. he knew what he was doing was state sanctioned.

He intended to kill which is the means rea for murder. He didn't commit the actus reus because the actus reus is the "unlawful killing". His killings were lawful therefore he never committed the actus reus. Had the killings not been lawful he would have committed murder.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

He intended to kill which is the means rea for murder. He didn't commit the actus reus because the actus reus is the "unlawful killing". His killings were lawful therefore he never committed the actus reus. Had the killings not been lawful he would have committed murder.

murder is the unlawful premitated killing of another. If what he did is not murder, and he knew it wasnt, how did he ever have the actus rea for murder?

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

murder is the unlawful premitated killing of another. If what he did is not murder, and he knew it wasnt, how did he ever have the actus rea for murder?

I said he didn't have the actus reus for murder but he had the mens rea for murder.