40 replies to this topic

[wanabe]

Just curious when does one become the other? Is theft of only when the identity of the vehicle has been changed?

[TheSwift]

Check the definition of a theft. It only becomes a theft when the offender has intention to permenantly deprive the owner of their property, in this case their vehicle.

TWOC is simply taking a vehicle without the owners consent with no intention of actually stealing it.

Edited by TheSwift, 06 February 2012 - 01:20 PM.

[wanabe]

That's what I was asking if the offender was to put false plates on the vehicle would this be seen as trying to permenantly deprive the owner of it?

[Owen]

That's what I was asking if the offender was to put false plates on the vehicle would this be seen as trying to permenantly deprive the owner of it?

More than likely as that is one of the rights of the owner. Theres no reason you would change the plates on a vehicle if you were going to give it back.

[TheSwift]

I doubt anyone 'TWOCing' a vehicle would put false plates on. IMO putting false plates on certainly goes someway to proving a theft. What you would need to find out is why they put false plates on.
It's all about the circumstances of the offence.

[callsign-kid]

If I took my mate's car out for a spin without his consent but have every intention of putting it back on his drive and hanging the keys up where I found them so he never knows the difference, or just handing the keys back to him and saying "Nice car, ride is a bit firm though." with a great big cheeky grin on my face then that is TDA (or TWOC if we must), it is not theft because I have no intention to permanently deprive him of his car. I just want to have a little drive round in it. If on the other hand I take my mate's car and have no intention of giving it back because I need a car, or I want to sell it then I commit theft. Its all about the mens rea in this case. If my mate reports his car stolen, you find me in the car you'd arrest me on suspicion of theft of it. When on taped interview I say "I only wanted it to go and buy some chips and I couldn't be bothered to walk." I get charged with the TDA.

Edit; the false plates are a bit of a misnomer. I don't need to put false plates on the car to have actus reas or mens rea to steal the vehicle (sect 1 theft). However in doing so I would show that it is my intention to steal the vehicle because I'm trying to give it a long term disguise and also by fitting my own plates I'm treating the property (the car) as though it is mine with which to do what I please.

Edited by callsign-kid, 06 February 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[wanabe]

Cheers guys.

[Police Constable 1]

If I took my mate's car out for a spin without his consent but have every intention of putting it back on his drive and hanging the keys up where I found them so he never knows the difference, or just handing the keys back to him and saying "Nice car, ride is a bit firm though." with a great big cheeky grin on my face then that is TDA (or TWOC if we must), it is not theft because I have no intention to permanently deprive him of his car. I just want to have a little drive round in it. If on the other hand I take my mate's car and have no intention of giving it back because I need a car, or I want to sell it then I commit theft. Its all about the mens rea in this case. If my mate reports his car stolen, you find me in the car you'd arrest me on suspicion of theft of it. When on taped interview I say "I only wanted it to go and buy some chips and I couldn't be bothered to walk." I get charged with the TDA.

Edit; the false plates are a bit of a misnomer. I don't need to put false plates on the car to have actus reas or mens rea to steal the vehicle (sect 1 theft). However in doing so I would show that it is my intention to steal the vehicle because I'm trying to give it a long term disguise and also by fitting my own plates I'm treating the property (the car) as though it is mine with which to do what I please.

Why say "if we must"? it is a rather common term when used with this offence.

What is TDA?

and if anyone is interested the actual offence title is Taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority. Section 12 Theft Act 1968

[callsign-kid]

Why say "if we must"? it is a rather common term when used with this offence.

What is TDA?

and if anyone is interested the actual offence title is Taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority. Section 12 Theft Act 1968

Taken and driven away. Same thing as TWOC its rather like saying Metvest rather than body armour, its Met TWOC.Its a tongue in cheek comment.

Edited by callsign-kid, 06 February 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[Police Constable 1]

Taken and driven away. Same thing as TWOC its rather like saying Metvest rather than body armour, its Met TWOC.

Well could you please refrain from using force acronyms as it confuses people.

TWOC is similar to GBH in that it is an extremely common term.

Makes it easier for those non met to follow the topic

Edited by Police Constable 1, 06 February 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[MC1]

Taken and driven away. Same thing as TWOC its rather like saying Metvest rather than body armour, its Met TWOC.Its a tongue in cheek comment.

You don't say TWOC in the Met?

[TroyTempest]

Well could you please refrain from using force acronyms as it confuses people.

TWOC is similar to GBH in that it is an extremely common term.

Makes it easier for those non met to follow the topic

Cheer up, he was only jokin'

You don't say TWOC in the Met?

I had to watch some program where some county mounties were investigating an incident where a horse drawn cart had been stolen before I came across TWOC.

Taking and Driving Away in the smoke

[callsign-kid]

Well could you please refrain from using force acronyms as it confuses people.

TWOC is similar to GBH in that it is an extremely common term.

Makes it easier for those non met to follow the topic

Neither TWOC, TDA or GBH are legally accepted terms. They are acronyms or force terms as you put it. I can't demand that counties officers, BTP and so on use TDA because I happen to prefer it.Of the country's 135,000 regular officers at least 32,000 prefer TDA.

Edited by callsign-kid, 06 February 2012 - 03:01 PM.

[stu0x]

In technical terms, the difference between TDA (suck it up carrot munchers ) and Theft is an objective judgement call based on the circumstances. There is no magic time limit or set of circumstances that makes one turn into another. TDA was created in response to a clever defence tactic which originated when 'joyriding' was flavour-of-the-month.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that over time we have become lazy and in most police officers' (and prosecutors') minds, TDA is theft of a vehicle.

I would like to put forward an alternate. On behalf of all your suited colleagues, I'd like to go so far as suggest that the difference doesn't really matter - because 99.9% of the time, you should have no involvement with the offence of Taking a Conveyance! You should not be saying it out loud, or writing it down. You *definitely* should not be arresting anyone for it. Please, please, please - start treating Taking a Conveyance as the social leper it should actually be.

How on earth do you know what someone's intention is when you arrest them? Have they specifically said to you 'it's a far cop guvnor, but the thing is I only borrowed it I always intended to give it back?'* No? Then why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt (and hamstringing the investigation in the process)?

Arrest for Theft. Investigate for Theft. Push for a charge of Theft. Don't hand out freebies. They're the defendant, let them come up with their own defence.

* And even if they did, would you believe them?

[BristolSam]

Neither TWOC, TDA or GBH are legally accepted terms. They are acronyms or force terms as you put it. I can't demand that counties officers, BTP and so on use TDA because I happen to prefer it.Of the country's 135,000 regular officers at least 32,000 prefer TDA.

GBH is a legally accepted term under Offences Against the Person Act?

[Machiavelli]

In technical terms, the difference between TDA (suck it up carrot munchers ) and Theft is an objective judgement call based on the circumstances. There is no magic time limit or set of circumstances that makes one turn into another. TDA was created in response to a clever defence tactic which originated when 'joyriding' was flavour-of-the-month.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that over time we have become lazy and in most police officers' (and prosecutors') minds, TDA is theft of a vehicle.

I would like to put forward an alternate. On behalf of all your suited colleagues, I'd like to go so far as suggest that the difference doesn't really matter - because 99.9% of the time, you should have no involvement with the offence of Taking a Conveyance! You should not be saying it out loud, or writing it down. You *definitely* should not be arresting anyone for it. Please, please, please - start treating Taking a Conveyance as the social leper it should actually be.

How on earth do you know what someone's intention is when you arrest them? Have they specifically said to you 'it's a far cop guvnor, but the thing is I only borrowed it I always intended to give it back?'* No? Then why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt (and hamstringing the investigation in the process)?

Arrest for Theft. Investigate for Theft. Push for a charge of Theft. Don't hand out freebies. They're the defendant, let them come up with their own defence.

* And even if they did, would you believe them?

Except a defendant's defence in court only needs to be plausible to be accepted, whereas the prosecution need to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. By charging for the offence which is more difficult to prove (ie. IPD) you're creating a greater chance he'll walk off scot free.

[MerseyLLB]

Except a defendant's defence in court only needs to be plausible to be accepted, whereas the prosecution need to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. By charging for the offence which is more difficult to prove (ie. IPD) you're creating a greater chance he'll walk off scot free.

See what you're saying there mate, but what actually happens in case of theft of a motor vehicle is that at crown court a jury can find an alternative verdict. That is they might decide that the defendant is not guilty of theft but find him guilty of TWOC. Its one of the subsections of TWOC in the Theft Act 1968 which provides for this.

[Machiavelli]

See what you're saying there mate, but what actually happens in case of theft of a motor vehicle is that at crown court a jury can find an alternative verdict. That is they might decide that the defendant is not guilty of theft but find him guilty of TWOC. Its one of the subsections of TWOC in the Theft Act 1968 which provides for this.

Interesting, in that case I guess you may as well always push for the theft after all lol. +1

[XRegulator]

Having just read through this thread, has anyone who has arrested someone for Taking a Motor Vehicle Without Consent subsequently interviewed the suspect for theft of fuel? Or is is part of the same offence? If subsequently found guilty of the offence, is the perpetrator made to compensate the owner of the vehicle as part of sentencing?

So, if someone takes your car without consent without the intention of permanently depriving you of the vehicle and it is subsequently recovered, then concerning the unauthorised use of fuel, is it a case of tough luck on the owner of the vehicle? Or does the owner have to pursue a civil case against the suspect or recover their costs from their motor insurer? I'd be pretty hacked off if someone took my car, dumped it 200 miles away only to get a call from the police to say, "Hello, we have your car here in Bournemouth, can you come and get it?" In this scenario, the owner would have to travel there at their own expense and collect the car and then pay for the return fuel home! Mightily out of pocket me thinks!

So, in essence, is/can the suspect be charged for theft of the fuel because he/she has permanently deprived the owner of the fuel?

If this whole subject of theft of fuel as part of TWOC has been covered before, I apologise, I couldn't find anything on search. I personally have no experience of TWOC/TDA coming from a military policing background except that many years ago I was involved in a case of a military vehicle being taken without consent by a serviceman and I believe he was charged with theft of fuel as well as unauthorised use of a service vehicle.

[Ben.]

Well could you please refrain from using force acronyms as it confuses people.

TWOC is similar to GBH in that it is an extremely common term.

Makes it easier for those non met to follow the topic

Get off your high horse and get back to assisting the OP with his question, which is what callsign-kid was doing before you got on the hunt...

Next...

[Police Constable 1]

Get off your high horse and get back to assisting the OP with his question, which is what callsign-kid was doing before you got on the hunt...

Next...

Thanks for that, sorry for trying to clarify a Met acronym to assist others in trying to undestand someones posts......btw if you read my post earlier you would actually see where I posted the relevant act and section, is that not helping someone? if not then I dont know what is!

[Billy Budd]

Having just read through this thread, has anyone who has arrested someone for Taking a Motor Vehicle Without Consent subsequently interviewed the suspect for theft of fuel? Or is is part of the same offence? If subsequently found guilty of the offence, is the perpetrator made to compensate the owner of the vehicle as part of sentencing?

So, if someone takes your car without consent without the intention of permanently depriving you of the vehicle and it is subsequently recovered, then concerning the unauthorised use of fuel, is it a case of tough luck on the owner of the vehicle? Or does the owner have to pursue a civil case against the suspect or recover their costs from their motor insurer? I'd be pretty hacked off if someone took my car, dumped it 200 miles away only to get a call from the police to say, "Hello, we have your car here in Bournemouth, can you come and get it?" In this scenario, the owner would have to travel there at their own expense and collect the car and then pay for the return fuel home! Mightily out of pocket me thinks!

So, in essence, is/can the suspect be charged for theft of the fuel because he/she has permanently deprived the owner of the fuel?

If this whole subject of theft of fuel as part of TWOC has been covered before, I apologise, I couldn't find anything on search. I personally have no experience of TWOC/TDA coming from a military policing background except that many years ago I was involved in a case of a military vehicle being taken without consent by a serviceman and I believe he was charged with theft of fuel as well as unauthorised use of a service vehicle.

No. The offence is simply the TWOC which is assumed to take into account the use of the petrol. Or at least I've never known a theft of fuel to be charged.

[XRegulator]

No. The offence is simply the TWOC which is assumed to take into account the use of the petrol. Or at least I've never known a theft of fuel to be charged.

Billy Budd, thanks for taking the time to answer. I just wondered if the court when considering punishment on offenders, took the loss of the fuel into account and the owner of the vehicle was recompensed by the offender. To not be compensated for the loss of fuel would be an affront to the victim of the TWOC, after all, it is effectively theft of fuel too. Having your motor pinched for a joy ride only to be told, 'tough, you don't get your fuel back' would just add extra insult. One hopes our legal system doesn't snub victims of TWOC in this way. Perhaps though, I'm being incredibly naive?

[MerseyLLB]

Billy Budd, thanks for taking the time to answer. I just wondered if the court when considering punishment on offenders, took the loss of the fuel into account and the owner of the vehicle was recompensed by the offender. To not be compensated for the loss of fuel would be an affront to the victim of the TWOC, after all, it is effectively theft of fuel too. Having your motor pinched for a joy ride only to be told, 'tough, you don't get your fuel back' would just add extra insult. One hopes our legal system doesn't snub victims of TWOC in this way. Perhaps though, I'm being incredibly naive?

But then you would have to charge all robbers/burglars/car thieves etc with abstracting electricity...

[Prolixia]

How on earth do you know what someone's intention is when you arrest them? Have they specifically said to you 'it's a far cop guvnor, but the thing is I only borrowed it I always intended to give it back?'* No? Then why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt (and hamstringing the investigation in the process)?

Arrest for Theft. Investigate for Theft. Push for a charge of Theft. Don't hand out freebies. They're the defendant, let them come up with their own defence.

I mostly agree, but I think there are certain times when TWOC/TDA would be more appropriate. For example, I remember watching an episode of Road Wars (or similar) when a lad having just acquired his provisional licence decided to 'borrow' his parents' car in order to run down to the shops one night whilst they were asleep - a phone call to their parents confirmed that they didn't know he had taken it, and didn't allow him to do so (without a supervising driver, etc.) Faced with those circumstances I genuinely wouldn't suspect that the lad had taken the car with the intention of permanently depriving his parents of it, but I would strongly suspect him of TDA/TWOC - so I could only arrest for the latter.

So, in essence, is/can the suspect be charged for theft of the fuel because he/she has permanently deprived the owner of the fuel? <snip> Many years ago I was involved in a case of a military vehicle being taken without consent by a serviceman and I believe he was charged with theft of fuel as well as unauthorised use of a service vehicle.

I like your thinking! I'd also be interested, but I suspect the answer is that the use of fuel is part of the TWOC offence - I've never heard of a separate charge for theft of it. I wonder if the serviceman filled up the vehicle at the base, or did so elsewhere without paying rather than simply using what was in the vehicle when he first took it.