-5

In another question Alice abandoned her pram without permission and Bob cut its chain to remove it from his property by dumping it on the side of the street. By doing this, did Bob (or Tesco) commit criminal damage by destroying Alice’s chain?

TylerDurden
  • 1
  • 1
  • 30
  • 92
  • 3
    It's impossible not to spot trends with you Tyler. Really, this is another example of you spamming this site with extremely similar questions. Is there some reason that this doesn't fit with your other question about Alice and her pram? Are the chain and pram reasonably considered to have differing legal standards applied to them such that they deserve separate questions? – Michael Hall Feb 01 '24 at 20:18
  • @Jen there is dubious merit to investigating whether a questions hypothetical may possibly be based loosely or directly on something that may have happened to them before, (which they may or may not have posted about elsewhere), and if one is concerned about that level of tenuous risk, one may as well not participate on the site, but it seems that if one has the time to investigate such tenuous models risks, then one has the time to follow another around the internet and there is furthermore not even much fundamental difference. – TylerDurden Feb 01 '24 at 20:40
  • Nonetheless, the question remains, what is the relevance of your posted link, much less it's contextual significance, to my hypothetical OP? – TylerDurden Feb 01 '24 at 20:41
  • Michael, I could say the same of yourself. I find your comment quite irksome for many reasons. 1. Seems that I can't win because while i night usually agree with you about combining similar/related questions, the consensus seems to be that that is frowned upon for asking multiple questions in a single post. While I'm sorry that you're not able (as quite often) to see the nuances in each post, which is probably a sign that you're not qualified to answer either of the questions, I also don't really wish to spend words explaining them to you but in general I think your commentary could benefit – TylerDurden Feb 01 '24 at 20:46
  • from assuming that there is possibly something you're not understanding before taking to scolding myself or another OP. EG in this case you could have conceded that you might be missing something more overtly than your question mark implicitly did, like "what's the difference between the pram in your other question and the chain? Are they the same, or am I missing something here?" instead of challenging me personally, in which case many could have pointed out having observed that the chain was damaged while the pram was not. – TylerDurden Feb 01 '24 at 20:49
  • One question involves damage to property, another merely disposal of it. Lastly, a question shouldn't be closed as a duplicate of another when the other doesn't answer the question, even if the other were to ask the same question. The one you propose as a duplicate doesn't have any answers posted on it at all. – TylerDurden Feb 01 '24 at 20:52
  • 3
    I hope you don't get a response that is correct for prams but incorrect for bikes. – Lag Feb 01 '24 at 21:29
  • @Lag and why would you hope that? – TylerDurden Feb 01 '24 at 22:11
  • 2
    A wild guess that you're more interested in locking up bikes than prams. – Lag Feb 01 '24 at 22:41
  • 2
    But most of your nuances are minor enough to seemingly not affect the legality of the situation. (Throw away a pram, vs throw away a phone, vs don't throw away but damage a chain...) Broadly, in each case the rightful owner is denied the use of a fully functional item, whether via theft, disposal, laziness, or willful damage would seem largely irrelevant. If you think the subtleties are important I would simply request that you explain why. That's all. – Michael Hall Feb 01 '24 at 22:49
  • 1
    Anyway, there are zillions of property damage/liability type questions already on this site, I recommend that you do some research first and then ask a meaningful question if you are truly confused about something. – Michael Hall Feb 01 '24 at 22:49
  • 1
    You suggested that I should have asked "what's the difference between the pram in your other question and the chain? Are they the same, or am I missing something here?" instead of "scolding" you. What I actually asked was "Is there some reason that this doesn't fit with your other question about Alice and her pram? Are the chain and pram reasonably considered to have differing legal standards applied to them such that they deserve separate questions?" Am I missing an important nuance between these two? – Michael Hall Feb 02 '24 at 01:32

1 Answers1

0

For a charge of criminal damage, the prosecution would have to prove (a) Bob damaged or destroyed the chain and (b) that he didn't have a lawful excuse.

S1 Criminal Damage Act 1971:

(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. ...

"Without lawful excuse" is defined at section 5.

Bob might claim he honestly believed his property, property right or interest was in immediate need of protection and that cutting the chain was a necessary and reasonable means of protection. It is immaterial whether the belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

Bob might have evidence about damage done by chains to his fence.

(Of course, there might not be any evidence it was Bob.)

If it's a railway station's fence then Railway Byelaw 14(4)(2) provides for the removal of the pram:

without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an operator or authorised person

(In Scotland this must be supervised by a constable.)

Lag
  • 16,878
  • 2
  • 39
  • 61