Bong!

[RobM]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100407/tod-oz-couple-lose-life-savings-in-chari-870a197.html

 

[Strykr]

theft by finding, havent heard that one before!

 

[osymandus]

theft by finding, havent heard that one before!

I had not till a little while ago , but it is basically not reporting the finding of an object and keeping it . Don't think we have it over here ?

 

[Strykr]

I had not till a little while ago , but it is basically not reporting the finding of an object and keeping it . Don't think we have it over here ?

seems a strange one

does this mean, that time i found a tenner on the street and kept it that im a crim?

makes me think of that film "a simple plan"

 

[EastStandBlue]

Theft by finding? **** off... If you're stupid enough to lose £60k like that, you deserve everything you get.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I had not till a little while ago , but it is basically not reporting the finding of an object and keeping it . Don't think we have it over here ?

seems a strange one

does this mean, that time i found a tenner on the street and kept it that im a crim?

makes me think of that film "a simple plan"

I don't think we have an offence of theft by finding, but theft is when someone dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. Pocketing a tenner in the streets probably isn't going to be dishonest as you probably couldn't trace who it belongs to*, but generally just because you find something doesn't mean you can keep it.

What I don't understand in this case, is that the couple legitimately purchased the suitcase. The buyer wouldn't be protected if it was worth less than they had paid for it, so I'm not sure why when it is worth more than they paid for it, it is different (although I expect the case was decided on the facts, rather than on a principle of law).

*Under common law treasure troves belong to the crown.

 

[steveo]

Don't think we have it over here ?

Didnt something similar happen with a lottery ticket?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1170467/Fraud-couple-30k-lottery-ticket-supermarket-floor-went-spending-spree.html

You might not be able to read this Osy, its from the Daily Mail.

 

[RobM]

...but they didn't 'dishonestly appropriate', did they? Suppose you bought a vase at a boot fair for £5 and found it was worth £30,000. That is the same, is it not? Both legitimate purchases in my book.

 

[Benfleet A1]

In my miss spent youth I found a old Ford badge by the allotments in Fairfax Drive. We had just been beaten by Wimbledon and a coach load of them were giving it large out of the windows. I was considering launching said badge in their general direction when two officers of the law appeared. I was given the thrid degree and told to turn out my pockets. When asked where the badge had come from I was told that I could be nicked for Theft by Finding which I suppose was better than criminal damage as I was about to chuck it at the coach anyway. I was then told to drop it back over the allotment fence and no more would be said. Surprised I wasn't done for littering instead.

 

[TrueBlue]

In my miss spent youth I found a old Ford badge by the allotments in Fairfax Drive. We had just been beaten by Wimbledon and a coach load of them were giving it large out of the windows. I was considering launching said badge in their general direction when two officers of the law appeared. I was given the thrid degree and told to turn out my pockets. When asked where the badge had come from I was told that I could be nicked for Theft by Finding which I suppose was better than criminal damage as I was about to chuck it at the coach anyway. I was then told to drop it back over the allotment fence and no more would be said. Surprised I wasn't done for littering instead.

Mindless thug you

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Suppose you bought a vase at a boot fair for £5 and found it was worth £30,000. That is the same, is it not?

Not sure it is the same, is it? It's the fact that there's tons of cash in the lining that makes their behaviour slightly dubious.

To use an analogy... if you bought a vase at your car boot sale, and found that there was a massive diamond ring in the bottom of it... you'd probably be acting on the boundaries of honesty and dishonesty if you trousered the ring, rather than pointing out your finding to the person who sold the vase to you.

For UK purposes, the key test would be whether or not you had acted dishonestly - YB has, of course, set out the test entirely correctly.

 

[chadded]

For UK purposes, the key test would be whether or not you had acted dishonestly - YB has, of course, set out the test entirely correctly.

Which I believe is laid down in R v Ghosh (1982)

Thst is to say, 'Would the man on the street view your actions as dishonest?' (The objective and subjective test)

 

[Firestorm]

Which I believe is laid down in R v Ghosh (1982)

Thst is to say, 'Would the man on the street view your actions as dishonest?' (The objective and subjective test)

Doesn't The man use the Clapham Omnibus anymore ?

 

[southend4ever]

Well I be blown!

 

[RobM]

Right - having checked, the lucky finder would have to demonstrate (s)he made "all reasonable attempts" to re-unite the owner with the cash/vase/ring, in our cases.
A panel of 10 people would, apparently, decide what was 'reasonable' and what wasn't.

 

[RobM]

"To use an analogy... if you bought a vase at your car boot sale, and found that there was a massive diamond ring in the bottom of it... you'd probably be acting on the boundaries of honesty and dishonesty if you trousered the ring, rather than pointing out your finding to the person who sold the vase to you."

However if I went back at a later date (not having found the ring until, say, next day) and I returned to the boot fair and asked people where the boot owner was as I had something of his I'd like to return, would that be sufficiently 'reasonable'?