Hmmmm. Interesting one this.
From S1 subsection 1 of the Theft Act 1968, if I recall correctly without looking it up "A person steals who dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
Now then, to whom does the property belong? If it is in the bins outside the store and the bins are the property of the store and on their land, could it be argued that the goods, albeit dysfunctional and apparently discarded, still belong to the store? Taking them without consent would be regarded as theft.
If they are in bins awaiting collection by another agency, could it be held that the goods now belong to the other agency (for use for example as pigs swill). Taking without consent is depriving the (now) rightful owner of the goods and is an offence under the act. Passing those goods on to someone else, or receiving equally so.
As for your comparison with a valuable painting, finders is definitely not keepers but discovering such a masterpiece in the loft of the house you bought could be argued to have passed in title to the new owner.
from what i remember if you discard something in a bin and while it remains on your premises its your property, when the bin men come and empty the bin into the lorry it then becomes the property of the disposal company. but as soon as the bin goes on the street for collection it is no ones property and therefore if someone rummages through it and finds something then they can take it... just how i saw things
I think that makes total sense. Once something is on the street - anyone should be able to look and take what they want. Why not?
It does amaze me that supoermarkets don't make a deal out of donating the food to local farms or homeless people. The PR they would get would be great.
I'd love to see her treated as a small-time tea-leaf and Tesco's getting the book thrown at them for waste/environmental damage. :giggle:
if its in the bin it could be argued that it has been put in there deliberately whereas if found in the street then its more likely to be lost. it could also be argued that a child had put it in a waste paper bin in the house and it got thrown away by mistake.. moral of story keep valuables away from kids and make sure of what you discard
Surely it should just be caveat emptor (ok it isn't buying but I don't know the Latin for skip-rat)? You take out of date food - or any food from a bin - you face the consequences. If the shop puts a sign up saying "contents taken at your own risk" job done! It also satisfies the darwin condition - people too ignorant (ie lacking in knowledge/experience) to work out what is safe are removed from the gene pool.
Nobody should ever need that much Ham! Still hate Tesco though. I bet Tesco (and other supermarkets) use the defense that 'they don't want to be sued by people who take food out of bins that then makes then ill.' Therefore, like you say, the sign saying 'contents taken at your own risk' would work well.
It is theft because it still belongs to Tesco - albeit, it is in the bin - it is their bin (which is a private bin) and on their property (which is private property).
It is no different to me coming into your garden and stealing from your bin, the fact that you don't want it does not displace the fact that the proprietary interest rests with you.
If the bin was a public bin and on public property, then it would still be theft because the proprietery interest rests with the borough council (or similar authority) who are responsible for the rubbish within the bin... of course for the charge to succeed the local authority would need to know that they had acquired the proprietery interest otherwise the charge would fail as you cannot lose something that you don't have.
The law is complicated with theft, that's why the laws on joyriding were introduced and so called "TWOC'ing" - if someone steals your car, it is often not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were going to give it back - and that's why the theft charges failed.
If the "stealer" had claimed that they thought that the property (the food) was abandoned (i.e. that they believed that it did not belong to anyone) then they would escape the theft charge, as it is not possible to steal something that does not belong to anyone - and it is the "honest belief" of the accused thief that counts.
This is why theives who steal bicycles all claim they thought the bike was abandoned.
Clearly she admitted theft at the time - the key here of course is do not talk to the police without a lawyer present... either that or don't nick stuff out of bins.
Some good points there.. particularly the TWOC'ing account :thumbup:
