To wonder how you can define 'theft?'

[user1491678180]

After seeing a thread on here that I read with interest (and confusion) I am wondering if someone who knows more about the law, can confirm what 'theft' actually is?

The thread was on about whether someone's cat can be stolen. The answer from most people was 'of course it can.' Because it's a possession that belongs to someone, and is registered to them; and many searches on the internet showed this to be true, including one someone posted on page 8 of that thread

@Iris65

www.pets4homes.co.uk/pet-advice/your-pets-and-the-law.html

That makes it quite clear you can indeed steal someone's cat, and it is 'theft.'

Yet someone else said if they just feed the cat, and pet it, and it 'chooses them,' then they are not stealing it.

They also posted something from the 'Theft' act.

sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_60_propety_offences/01_theft.htm

Which basically states that taking something is not theft if you did not intend to keep the item permanently, and intended to give the item back.

So surely if that is the case, we can all take stuff, from friends, and neighbours, and colleagues, and our employers, and shops and stores, and say that we didn't intend to keep it, so it's not stealing. And if they can't prove otherwise, we won't get charged with theft surely? Hey Mr Jones, yeah I took your lawnmower 3 weeks ago, but it's only in my garage and I was going to bring it back.' 'Hey Mr policeman, I took the dress from H & M, but I only wanted it for a few days, so I have something to wear for the party. I was going to bring it back!'

How can anyone prove I intended to keep the item permanently?

And if they can't, then surely it's not theft? That is what that link to the theft act is inferring.

Enlighten me someone. I am confused by all these grey areas!

No, no-one has stolen my cat.

I was just hoping someone would come on here, who knew what they were on about, and could define exactly what THEFT is (as I outlined in my OP.)

Something in the THEFT act suggested if you took something and intended to return it, that it's not theft.

That makes no sense to me, as EVERYone could say they intended to give back ANYthing that they took, so no-one would ever get done for theft.

I was hoping someone who knew a lot more about this would post on this thread.

Sadly, this hasn't happened. Plenty of places outline that a cat CAN be stolen, so the poster who reckons they know different is woefully wrong. I really hope they don't work in law as they claim.

AIBU is an odd place to choose if what you genuinely want is a definitive definition of a legal term. AIBU is purely about subjective opinions on whether someone is unreasonable. Try the legal board maybe? Or a law text book...

Surely it's pretty bloody obvious that it's a bit harder to apply the TWOC definition of theft to an animal which is owned but free to roam. With a dog it would be obvious theft because people don't generally give their dogs free rein around the neighbourhood. So even if you found someone's mislaid dog wandering around, knowingly taking it into your house and keeping it there would be theft. Whereas letting a cat wander into your house if it likes, giving it treats, but letting it leave again is not theft.

OP I think you’ll find that the legal definition ( in Scotland that is)

A crime at common law and is the taking and appropriating of property without the consent of the rightful owner or other lawful authority.

Meaning that

◦	There was appropriation of property
◦	taking was felonious
◦	intent to deprive the owner
◦	property belonged to another

As for animals eg cats/dogs you have difficulty actually proving initial ownership. Cats for instance will wonder into other people’s house. You’d have to prove and intent to deprive the true owners by trapping the cat within the house. Was it a one off? Has it happened for a while? Is that cat chipped? Etc.

It would be hard if not possible to prove criminality and would be more of a civil thing.

PP did give you a definition.

What are you looking for exact clarification of OP??

If you took something and intended to return it you still deprived them in that instance. Other than joyriding, which is usually family members, the taking is theft. Even if you moved something in someone’s house when you break in, it’s theft.

A cat is a cat. If you know it’s well looked after and has a home just accept it as a friendly occasional visitor.

"Even if you moved something in someone’s house when you break in, it’s theft"

Criminal damage (England & Wales) ?

OP mylearned has told you exactly what theft is.

I think the mistake you're making is in thinking the evidence about an accused person's intention is limited to what they say about it. Intention can be, and is every day in the criminal courts , inferred from other evidence. It would be crazy to have it any other way when you think about it, as nobody would get convicted of anything as just about every criminal offence has an element of intention.

Waves at mylearned, clearly another bored barrister here (well not so much bored as bfing a 3 month old).

Yes it is

I’m talking applied Scottish law @MyLearnedFriend

I’m only talking about Scots law. I made that clear in my post. No such crime as burglary here.

I think it comes down to case law. You’ve went in and initially taken it with the intent to deprive (due to breaking in). Only intent needed for the completion of the crime no actual deprivation needed. So yes, break in, collect all items of worth, get disturbed and leave items whilst you make off. You get caught. It’s a theft by housebreaking even though goods didn’t leave the house. Although it’s a different kettle of fish what happens in court but that’s what you’d get charged with and reported to the procurator fiscal stating. English and Scottish Law have lovely and hilarious differences.

If you damage someones property = criminal damage

With the note that there need not be a quantum of damage (E & W again) ....

Well you can’t usually prove intent. As with all crimes, the police will assess whether they thought you intended to permanently deprive the person of their belongings. If they think you did, they’ll ask the COPS if they think there are sufficient grounds for prosecution. If there are, and it goes to court, and you deny the offence then a magistrate or a jury will decide if they believe you are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

As to what this has to do with the price of cats fish though!

Nothing, really. Just keeping my mind active ..