Is this theft?

[OLJR]

I took a return trip from Newcastle to Darlington today, using VTEC in 1ST which offers free drinks.

On the outbound drinks were served out of Newcastle but out of Darlington I went to the service area and asked the stewardess for a Coke, which was provided. But it made me wonder if any of the following scenarios count as theft?

Scenario 1:
A 1ST ticket holder on VTEC visits the service area and, on finding the trolley unattended, takes a drink back to her seat and drinks it on the train

Scenario 2:
A 1ST ticket holder on VTEC visits the vestibules and without any staff contact opens an unsealed service cart, takes a drink back to her seat and drinks it on the train

Scenario 3:
A 1ST ticket holder on VTEC visits the vestibules and without any staff contact opens a sealed service cart, takes a drink back to her seat and drinks it on the train.

Why is this relevant? Well, often there are no drinks runs over significant journey times and passengers wanting a drink and not finding staff available might take matters into their own hands.

What does the board think?

 

[Polarbear]

The way I see it is that although the food & beverage service provided in 1st class is complementary, the provisions are the property of the TOC. Passengers/customers do not make any direct payment for these items, so on that basis, it could be viewed (technically) as theft.

The reality is that in the quoted examples, I very much doubt any action would be taken. Bear in mind that Virgin West Coast provide bottles of water which are stored in the fridges, and you can get those at any point without asking.

On one occasion many moons ago, the crew left the trolly at the end of the vestibule & invited the few people on board to "help themselves", whilst they put their feet up elsewhere! That was quite entertaining!

 

[Iskra]

The theft act states:

'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'

I would say that it belongs to VTEC until issued to the customer by a staff member. How does the customer know it is intended for them? It could be the standard class trolley for all they know?

In the above situations, the customer could be construed as being dishonest as they have not got consent, thus fulfilling the criteria of the Theft Act 1968. If they sought out a staff member and asked if they could take it from the trolley, that would be different.

I'm not saying people should or would be prosecuted for it, just that it could be construed as meeting the criteria of the theft act as it is 'dishonestly appropriat[ing] property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.'

 

[najaB]

What does the board think?

Technically, yes it is theft. In practice the TOC is unlikely to call BTP unless you took an unreasonable amount.

 

[broadgage]

Agree, technically it is theft to take the goods without specific permission, at least if this involves opening a door or breaking a seal.
If the goods are on open display, then it could be argued either way.
It might be argued that taking is still theft, without specific permission.
OTOH, it could be argued that "implied permission" has already been granted, by advertising that certain items are FOC in first class, and then leaving such items on open display.
If the items are clearly intended for passengers use, then it MIGHT be argued that the situation is more comparable to say the first class lounge at Paddington, where a variety of complimentary supplies are laid out on an unattended counter.

However remembering that the owner of the goods does intend to supply them free of charge to the customer, it would be a rather mean spirited prosecution, unless of course there were aggravating circumstances such as taking excessive quantities, or taking alcohol when already drunk.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Having flashbacks to a certain forum trip a year or so ago...

 

[falcon]

I took a return trip from Newcastle to Darlington today, using VTEC in 1ST which offers free drinks.

On the outbound drinks were served out of Newcastle but out of Darlington I went to the service area and asked the stewardess for a Coke, which was provided. But it made me wonder if any of the following scenarios count as theft?

Scenario 1:
A 1ST ticket holder on VTEC visits the service area and, on finding the trolley unattended, takes a drink back to her seat and drinks it on the train

Scenario 2:
A 1ST ticket holder on VTEC visits the vestibules and without any staff contact opens an unsealed service cart, takes a drink back to her seat and drinks it on the train

Scenario 3:
A 1ST ticket holder on VTEC visits the vestibules and without any staff contact opens a sealed service cart, takes a drink back to her seat and drinks it on the train.

Why is this relevant? Well, often there are no drinks runs over significant journey times and passengers wanting a drink and not finding staff available might take matters into their own hands.

What does the board think?

The board thinks you should buy a standard class ticket in future and save yourself the headache.:roll:

 

[47271]

Week in week out I have bottles of wine left beside me in Coach G on Virgin West Coast. Usually in the self service fridge area, sometimes they leave a crate of booze on a single seat across the aisle.

I'm not sure how they would react if I got out of my seat and helped myself. Knowing them very well, I reckon they would say 'oi' and we'd have a laugh. I don't do it because I'm well brought up and I don't need a drink that badly.

You need to find something more important to worry about.

 

[route:oxford]

I took a return trip from Newcastle to Darlington today, using VTEC in 1ST which offers free drinks.

On the outbound drinks were served out of Newcastle but out of Darlington I went to the service area and asked the stewardess for a Coke, which was provided. But it made me wonder if any of the following scenarios count as theft?

Scenario 1:
A 1ST ticket holder on VTEC visits the service area and, on finding the trolley unattended, takes a drink back to her seat and drinks it on the train

Scenario 2:
A 1ST ticket holder on VTEC visits the vestibules and without any staff contact opens an unsealed service cart, takes a drink back to her seat and drinks it on the train

Scenario 3:
A 1ST ticket holder on VTEC visits the vestibules and without any staff contact opens a sealed service cart, takes a drink back to her seat and drinks it on the train.

What does the board think?

All absolutely fine.

Anyone who travels regularly in First, Upper or other equivalent classes of airlines or has Diamond/Privilege status for hotel lounges is more than familiar with the "help yourself" facilities in the lounges and on the planes. Why should it be any different on the trains?

Breaking a seal isn't the same as breaking a lock. A seal is there for evidence tampering, not to prevent access.

 

[najaB]

Anyone who travels regularly in First, Upper or other equivalent classes of airlines or has Diamond/Privilege status for hotel lounges is more than familiar with the "help yourself" facilities in the lounges and on the planes. Why should it be any different on the trains?

Because in those cases the goods are place there specifically to be taken. In the scenarios outlined by the OP they were not.

As I said above, extremely unlikely to result in a conversation with BTP but still, strictly speaking, theft.

 

[gray1404]

I this that this is where the "reasonable" test will come into play. Someone taking a few things will not matter too much I guess. But someone clearing out the stock is more likely to go noticed and cause concern.

 

[Cantab26]

As I said above, extremely unlikely to result in a conversation with BTP but still, strictly speaking, theft.

I disagree with this conclusion. In my view:

• It is unlikely that Scenario 1 would be considered dishonest;
• Scenario 3 would probably be considered dishonest; and
• Scenario 2 is more difficult, but would probably be considered dishonest.

To put the matter another way, I do not believe that Scenario 1 would constitute theft.

 

[najaB]

To put the matter another way, I do not believe that Scenario 1 would constitute theft.

Unless the passenger had been given explicit permission to take the items then it is theft.

 

[Barn]

Unless the passenger had been given explicit permission to take the items then it is theft.

Is that the rule in Scotland? In E&W the test is objective and subjective dishonesty. If a person thought he had permission, and the magistrates or jury thought it was reasonable for him to think that, it isn't theft. Explicit permission knocks out dishonesty, but lack of explicit permission doesn't always create dishonesty

 

[najaB]

Is that the rule in Scotland? In E&W the test is objective and subjective dishonesty.

I suppose this is where we get into arguments as to what is and is not 'honest' behaviour. My take on it is, in absence of a sign or similar saying that you are allowed to take an item, the only unambiguously honest behaviour is to leave it where it is.

 

[Agent_c]

Is that the rule in Scotland? In E&W the test is objective and subjective dishonesty. If a person thought he had permission, and the magistrates or jury thought it was reasonable for him to think that, it isn't theft. Explicit permission knocks out dishonesty, but lack of explicit permission doesn't always create dishonesty

I was taught that its the taking of another person's property with the intention of depriving them of it permenently... so you would have to not have permission and know it...

...Thats not to say it isn't a different crime though.

 

[najaB]

.. so you would have to not have permission and know it...

Surely it's taking the item without knowing that you do have permission, rather than knowing that you don't have permission.

The presumption being that you don't have permission to take things unless it is explicitly granted?

The way that you've phrased it "There wasn't a sign saying I couldn't take it." is a defence against any theft charge.

 

[Cantab26]

I was taught that its the taking of another person's property with the intention of depriving them of it permenently... so you would have to not have permission and know it...

This is only half of the test for the offence. Each of these elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to found a conviction:

• Property
• Belonging to another
• Is appropriated
• Dishonestly
• With the intention of permanently depriving the owner thereof

Permission (or the lack thereof) is not determinative either way and is not an essential ingredient for the commission of the offence.

 

[Cantab26]

Surely it's taking the item without knowing that you do have permission, rather than knowing that you don't have permission.

This is backwards. The relevant question for the tribunal of fact is whether the accused fell below the standards of honesty held by reasonable men and that he knew that his behaviour failed to meet that standard.

Now then, if it came out at trial that the accused knew that he did not have permission to take the property, that would be evidence from which the tribunal might infer dishonesty because reasonable men do not take things in such circumstances and it is highly unlikely without more that the accused did not know that to be the case.

The presumption being that you don't have permission to take things unless it is explicitly granted?

The law knows of no such presumption.

The way that you've phrased it "There wasn't a sign saying I couldn't take it." is a defence against any theft charge.

Unlikely to succeed as a defence by itself, but not impossible in certain situations and in conjunction with other factors it could be persuasive enough to raise a reasonable doubt.

---
Let me give an example by way of a law exam 'problem question':

Mungo visits the offices of leading law firm Scheister, Grabb and Robb for a job interview. He is asked to wait in the lobby and, as the time drags on for over a quarter of an hour, he notices that there is a bowl of mint imperials on the coffee table. He takes one and pops it into his mouth.

A few seconds later, Ludmilla - head of 'welcome' for the firm - swoops down on him and accuses him of theft: the mints are only provided for consumption by clients and Mungo did not have permission to eat one.

Now then, are the elements of the offence made out on the facts?

• Property? Yes, the mint is property.
• Belonging to another? Yes, it belongs to the law firm.
• Appropriation? Yes, Mungo took it into his mouth.
• Intention permanently to deprive? Yes, because he was going to eat the mint.

Therefore, the only relevant issue is this: was Mungo's behaviour dishonest?

Please read the rubric printed on the front of your examination paper carefully. Candidates who do not may be at a grave disadvantage.

You have fifteen minutes starting now.

 

[Bromley boy]

This is only half of the test for the offence. Each of these elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to found a conviction:

• Property
• Belonging to another
• Is appropriated
• Dishonestly
• With the intention of permanently depriving the owner thereof

Permission (or the lack thereof) is not determinative either way and is not an essential ingredient for the commission of the offence.

If someone believed they had permission it would be very difficult to establish dishonest intent (as I recall dishonesty itself is determined by a "reasonable person" test). The theft act itself also states (section 2)

"Dishonestly”

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it;...

I reckon the example posed of a first class ticket holder who is entitled to free drinks by virtue of holding a first class ticket could argue they believed they had an implied permission to take said drinks hence were not acting with dishonesty.

Much like bundles of evening standards are often left unttended for people to take. Doing so is clearly in no way dishonest.

The situation would be different if a standard class ticket holder, knowing they were not entitled to said drinks, did the same thing.

 

[Bromley boy]

This is backwards. The relevant question for the tribunal of fact is whether the accused fell below the standards of honesty held by reasonable men and that he knew that his behaviour failed to meet that standard.

Now then, if it came out at trial that the accused knew that he did not have permission to take the property, that would be evidence from which the tribunal might infer dishonesty because reasonable men do not take things in such circumstances and it is highly unlikely without more that the accused did not know that to be the case.



The law knows of no such presumption.



Unlikely to succeed as a defence by itself, but not impossible in certain situations and in conjunction with other factors it could be persuasive enough to raise a reasonable doubt.

---
Let me give an example by way of a law exam 'problem question':

Mungo visits the offices of leading law firm Scheister, Grabb and Robb for a job interview. He is asked to wait in the lobby and, as the time drags on for over a quarter of an hour, he notices that there is a bowl of mint imperials on the coffee table. He takes one and pops it into his mouth.

A few seconds later, Ludmilla - head of 'welcome' for the firm - swoops down on him and accuses him of theft: the mints are only provided for consumption by clients and Mungo did not have permission to eat one.

Now then, are the elements of the offence made out on the facts?

• Property? Yes, the mint is property.
• Belonging to another? Yes, it belongs to the law firm.
• Appropriation? Yes, Mungo took it into his mouth.
• Intention permanently to deprive? Yes, because he was going to eat the mint.

Therefore, the only relevant issue is this: was Mungo's behaviour dishonest?

Please read the rubric printed on the front of your examination paper carefully. Candidates who do not may be at a grave disadvantage.

You have fifteen minutes starting now.

Very similar scenario.

Mungo was sitting in an office reception waiting for job interview. Therefore he obviously had permission to be in the waiting area and would quite reasonably believe mints left out were for the general consumption of people in the waiting area, therefore no dishonest intent.

The situation might be different if:

1. There was a sign on the bowl of mints saying "clients only"

2. He had simply walked into a random office building and sat down in reception, with no business to conduct. It would then be more difficult to argue he believed he had implied permission by virtue of being an invited guest in the waiting area.

 

[najaB]

Mungo was sitting in an office reception waiting for job interview. Therefore he obviously had permission to be in the waiting area and would quite reasonably believe mints left out were for the general consumption of people in the waiting area, therefore no dishonest intent.

I follow the argument being made, but the issue is, that in each of the scenarios presented, the ticket holder is getting up from their seat and going into the service area - which is subtly different to taking a mint from a bowl that has been placed on the table in front of you.

It would be a bit like Mungo going into a kitchen area adjacent to the waiting room and helping himself to the tea or coffee bought by the company to be used by staff and offered to guests.