Posted 02 June 2012 - 09:39 AM
An employee aged 22 has regular access to a fleet of company 1.6l Ford Focus's. One day only one of them is available but it has a cracked windscreen and the employee needs to pop out to a supplier. The employee has seen a recent delivery of 5 'debadged' gunmetal Audi A6's in the rear yard and knows that the keys are in the facilities managers office key press to which they have a key because it also contains keys to rooms they are responsible for. They take the keys to one of the Audis and drive it to the supplier.
On the way back from the supplier they go to overtake another vehicle and not used to the power of the Audi complete the overtake and carry on down the road for some distance at considerably above the speed limit when they pass a patrol car waiting to pull out of a junction. The patrol car pulls out behind and by this time the Audi was travelling at the speed limit and the officers had no means of determining how fast the car was going but pull it over for a check.
The officers run checks on the driver and licence which come back clean.
The vehicle is shown PNC as Audi A6, taxed, insured and registered to a company to which the driver shows their company ID card.
The officers are about to let the driver go with advice to drive slower when one of them asks control to check for any clauses on the insurance. The response it that it covers any employee with a clause that under 25s are excluded from cars over 2.0l. Knowing the driver to be 22 and believing that model of Audi to have a greater than 2.0l engine the officers ask the driver to open the bonnet. The driver claims not to know how to, so the officer opens the bonnet to reveal the 4.2l V8. The driver claimed not to know the engine size and commented that it was quite a bit quicker then the normal Focus they drive, but the Focus are on their last legs. The driver does not have a vehicle of their own and cycles to work.
The THIS test appears to have failed and the driver is possibly not insured, so a call is made to the insurer who state that statutory 3rd party cover would be provided for the journey up to that point but that now they were aware of the vehicle being driven by an under 25 they were no longer willing to continue providing cover for that driver to continue that journey.
With no power to seize the vehicle but unable to let the driver continue the officers call the general manager of the company who states that he is unaware that one of the Audi is being used as they were to be intended to be presented to the business segment managers that afternoon and that the employee driving is not allowed to drive the vehicle. They would be having stern words when they got back to the office. They would send somebody out to recover the vehicle.
So what offences? TWOC appears to be complete though the employer has no wish to assist with any criminal proceeding against the employee. Older employee turns up in taxi to driver car back to office.
Posted 02 June 2012 - 11:26 AM
Edited by wanabe, 02 June 2012 - 11:26 AM.
Posted 02 June 2012 - 12:57 PM
Also if he doesn't have any insurance cover then he is liable for 6 points £200 fine is he not? and the vehicle could be seized under Sec 165 RTA, although I think the best course of action here would be to let the company recover the car rather than them having to recover it from a police impound and pay the release fees.
If this was me in the situation I'd be giving the driver a ticket for no insurance, and if the employer doesn't wish to make a complaint then I would give words of advice to the driver in regards to TWOC.
Looking at the scenario though it says that the driver does not have his own car and cycles, for arguments sake I will take it he has a substantial licence?
Posted 02 June 2012 - 01:28 PM
Posted 02 June 2012 - 06:20 PM
However if the insurance company had said that it wasn't insured, then you'd go for no insurance and then ask the company if he had permission. With permission you prosecute whoever gave permission for allowing(aiding?) an uninsured driver to drive. With no permission add TWOC to the original ticket.
Posted 02 June 2012 - 07:15 PM
Little Johnny is 16 and a bit of a handful for his single mum who is seeing a new chap who little Johnny hates with passion. One night when mum's boyfriend Terry is staying over, little Johnny sneaks downstairs and takes the keys to Terrys BMW M3 out of the coat hanging in the hall and takes off in the car. He drives around the town like a loon but at 2am there is thankfully not a lot of people or traffic about. He finds every speed camera he knows of and races through them as fast as he can with a map book held up to obscure the drivers identity. His intention was to do this on about five different cameras so that Terry would loose his licence. After about half an hour the engine cuts out and he then notices that the fuel light has probably been on all the time he has been out. He is a few miles from the nearest garage and a mile from home. His plan to return the car is now thwarted and so he rolls the car down a deserted side turning and then sets fire to it. He walks home and sneaks back into the house and puts the keys back in the coat pocket before crawling into bed.
When Terry awakes the next morning and opens the front door to go out and get the paper, he spots that his car is missing but that the keys are still in his pocket where he lift them. He calls the police to report the car stolen.
On investigation a taxi driver comes forward and describes a young male matching Johnny and wearing clothes that he was wearing when police attended the next morning, walking close to where the car was burnt out at about 02:45.
What offences can be applied?
Posted 02 June 2012 - 07:28 PM
Scenario 2, aggravated TWOC as the person drove dangerously and then caused damage to the vehicle
Posted 04 June 2012 - 06:39 PM
We have taken advice on this, and been told it does not need '' consent'' just lawful authority, that is an understanding that they can take any vehicle is enough to protect them from a TWOC charge. Furthermore, that section 12, 6 of the theft act 1968 allows a statutory defence, that a belief that they had lawful authority or that consent would have have been given if they had asked
This was tested in a situation very like the scenario given, in that one of our trainees was rushing to a meeting called at short notice, found the car park blocked by a scaffolding wagon, jumped in the MDs private Porsche and shot off in that. Two miles later he is answering questions on who the car belongs to, if he has consent of the owner and if he is insured.
The situation was happily resolved,by our MD confirming in court that all though no consent was given, it would have been if he had been asked and the insurance confirming that he was insured, as he was driving on company business. Though it did need a threat to take our policy elsewhere if they didn't
Edited by SimpleTater, 04 June 2012 - 06:42 PM.
Posted 06 June 2012 - 11:06 PM
Scenario 2 - As said aggravated vehicle taking fits, however the penalties are not really stiff enough (max 2 years imprisonment) so I wonder if arson could be appropriate?
Posted 07 June 2012 - 12:37 PM
For scenario 2 I'd go with theft.
Posted 08 June 2012 - 11:46 AM
Scenario Two - Theft - the intention to permenantly deprive occured at the point he decided to torch it.
Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:01 PM
Theft requires the element of permanent deprivation. The 16 year old had no intention of returning the vehicle to the rightful owner when he proceeded to set fire to it, therefore theft of a motor vehicle would be applicable here.
Also to those wondering, it is theft if a vehicle is deported from country of origin, even if no intent to destroy the vehicle.
Posted 20 June 2012 - 10:46 PM
As long as a company employee with the appropriate licence and management authorisation to drive the vehicle attends to take the vehicle home, no offence. The employees company are likely to hang him out to dry for it, we don't need to look for further ways to make his life miserable.
Re twoc, if the company are unwilling to provide a statement to the effect of TWOC you will be as well to bin the job. Reality is, the driver may well have believed that as a company vehicle he would be able to drive it, and that he would have had permission had the vehicle owner known, and therefore this honestly held belief would likely constitute a defence.
At the time he first appropriated the keys and drove the car, he would have been unlikely to have had permission had the owner known he was going to drive it. If this is the case, he has therefore committed twoc, and most likely no insurance offences. Regarding the aspect of intentionally activating speed cameras to prosecute another, I would be persuing an offence of perverting the course of justice. (wilfully committing an act or series of acts with the intention to pervert public justice).
At the time he decided to (and obviously carried out) the act of torching the car, he commits theft of motor vehicle, because a) he has dishonestly (no permission) appropriapted property (the keys and car) belonging to another (the new parner,) and torching the car is clearly going to permanently deprive the owner of it.
Edited by SC James, 20 June 2012 - 10:52 PM.
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: traffic, vehicles
General Policing →
General Discussion →
General Policing →
It's the Law →
Law: England & Wales →
General Policing →
Scenario City →
Off Duty →
The Real World →
General Policing →
General Discussion →
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users