To wonder why the police got involved?

[Lifegoeson]

My brother and sister-in-law ordered an Indian meal from a local take away a few weeks ago and paid by cheque, unfortunately it bounced. Member of staff called from take away, bro said he would drop cash in, sadly his mother in law died unexpectedly the next day, so he forgot.

Fast forward to this morning, a police office arrived at their door in a marked car with a copy of the cheque and wanting the cash, £27.50. This seems to me to be an outrageous waste of police resources, I know of people who haven't even had the police call when they have been burgled!

So, are the police now debt collectors now too?!

Another one with a vivid imagination OP ?

nijinsky

Fuck me, you're clever.

You've got to laugh at total lay people deciding on here what offend has been committed "in their eyes" arrogent much? I can't believe people are arguing with snuffle when she clearly knows what she's talking about.

As far as the restaurant is concerned whatever the excuses, the money was not paid to them that was owed, they are a business who has to make money, not a free for all, if many customers did that, they would loose a lot of money and have to close probably. Good thing it was the Police that acted as debt collectors, and not some dubious debt collection agency who use very unsavoury tactics to get money back. Did your brother know that the cheque would bounce

You've got to laugh at total lay people deciding on here what offend has been committed "in their eyes" arrogent much? I can't believe people are arguing with snuffle when she clearly knows what she's talking about

Its not as arrogant as implying that the law can be changed by the police for "recording purposes". That would require instead the passing of primary legislation by our democratically elected representatives. We do not live in a police state.

Serenity - thank you!

nijinsky - I really can't be bothered to argue with you. You are either very dim or extremely obtuse to spectacularly miss the point with regards to the issue of mens rea. As regards your snidey remark about my "having done law as part of my day release and now I know it all", you're almost there. But I also have a BSc First Class (Hons), MSc and PHd in Criminal Justice Policy.

But please don't let that stop you from continuing to spout your opinion as fact.

I'm not in the slightest bit dim my dear. Theres no need to cover up your embarrassing mistakes by being nasty. Remember that this is an internet discussion forum and quite frankly, getting competitive about whether or not you are a lawyer is a tad ridiculous. It is up to people to believe what they will.

However you are not a lawyer or a solicitor, your first degree was in science and further degrees in law related subjects do not make you a lawyer. No matter how hard you try, you have got this one wrong because you have never done the LLB and have never practiced.

Quite frankly though, someone who is claiming to have a PHd in Criminal Justice should be fully aware of the definition of theft and that it cannot be changed for reasons of administrative convenience.

Ahem. My first degree was in Applied Criminology with Criminal Justice Policy. Not Science.

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. Nor do I need to be one in order to understand this issue.

I literally cannot believe that you describe the HOCR as existing for administrative convenience

However, I have a poorly baby, a headache, and a lot of washing up to do, and I really can't be bothered to continue with such a pointless argument.

Night.

Fair enough. But you're not a lawyer. And neither can you recognise a lawyer when you are discussing the concept of theft with them.

Both the mens rea and actus reus of theft are clearly set out in the Theft Act 1968 s.1.

s(4)(1) provides the definition of "property" for the purposes of s.1 to include "money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property". "Appropriation" is defined as any assumption of the rights of an owner. ie it does not require a lack of authority by the owner - R. v Lawrence, as followed in this respect by R. v Gomez.

There is a possibility that this could be obaining property by deception under the Fraud Act (until evidence is gathered and the CPS make a decision it is uncertain), but what is certain is that the police have correctly treated it as a crime.

You will forgive my attention to detail here.

Quite frankly, I get fed up of the insistence by some members of the police force that if a civil action exists, it cannot be a criminal offence. It is of course the case that there can be civil action and a criminal offence resulting out of the same act.

I once had police turn up on my doorstep when dozy DH drove off without paying for his petrol. Absolutely mortified I went down and paid the petrol station straight away.

I imagine that the only way they could get our address was via the police.

So completely normal IMHO.

Well I,d have thought it could be considered theft, after been given ample time to pay and not doing so. The police are there to investigate so going to someone's house to establish their intent is in their remit.

Oh and I have a criminology degree which I was told was a science degree. Hence I have a bsc.

^^ I got one of them too. Still wouldn't say its a science degree. Its just in the science disipline. OH has a BA in English but I'd think it was weird if he told people he had an Art degree.
With the information given in the OP and if there's no more to it) snuffleturtle153 is right. But I think there's much more to this than the OP has told us
nijinknsys complete misunderstanding fo the counting rules has made me !

nijinknsys complete misunderstanding fo the counting rules has made me !

Run that one by me in English again and I will try to answer it.

Law is one of those areas where a PHd cuts no mustard. The LLB is one of the hardest courses to get into in the first place and a further degree, beyond the Diploma or LPC is just about never done, other than for self interest. Criminology is an entirely specific studying of one area related to law. I studied criminology as one of my honours papers, and although interesting, a lot of it is non-law related.

I am a solicitor who now lectures part time purely at postgraduate level. I set and mark LLM exam papers for students from both LLB and, increasingly, non LLB backgrounds, and I am pretty experienced in spotting the bullshit some of them try to run past you. (my favourite one is bringing the purely criminal HSAWA74 into reperation answers). Its actually quite shocking at times. And when you fail them or give them the mark they "don't think they deserve", this type of student sometimes tries the "don't you know who I am? I have a degree in blah blah blah etc". As I say, cuts no mustard.

Along with police trying to say criminal matters are civil as a cop out, my other bugbear is people who are not solicitors claiming they know the law. If you want to be a solicitor, get the qualifications you need to get into the LLB degree, then do the Diploma or LPC, then do a two year traineeship and then get some PQE.

The police have acted correctly in this case, and I have had my worries about the standard of certain undergraduate degrees now awarded in the UK confirmed.

As a police officer who has passed various exams to attain my rank and gain my experience I have actually checked HOCR to check my original post was correct. There is nothing in HOCR which states this is a civil matter.

nijinsky - we are not all the same

Tbh can't be arsed to argue the point any further. Cops have done their job and sorted the matter out.

PS HOCR does exist for administrative convenience and there is a strong movement within the police to remove the unnecessary constraints they brought. Each police force interprets them differently and the statistics which we are unfortunately governed by then reflect this.

SharonGless
nijinsky - we are not all the same

In all my (few) personal dealings with the police, they have bent over backwards to be helpful. I have several friends who are serving police officers. I am sharing your frustration with management and recording devices.

And I am not being told what the law is by a non-lawyer!

Sorry meant to put a wink after it - am with you all the way on this one!