Enjoying my FREE ipad 2 ;)

[iStudentUK]

From the Theft Act, 1968:

"A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

This is quoted from an old textbook, but I don't think it has changed.

From the Theft Act 1968, s.2(1)(a)

"[No dishonesty] if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it..."

This is a subjective test. If the OP truly believes in "finders keepers" then he is not guilty. There may be a s.2(1)(c) point as well, but it is probably weak.

As I said, this would possibly be a theft under UK law, but it is not certain.

I've been revising theft this morning, this thread is proving quite useful!

 

[brayhite]

This story has to be fake. I can't imagine anyone is as classless as this guy to go onto a MacRumors forum of all places. Maybe on his Twitter or Facebook. But not MacRumors where he knows he'd get flamed and insulted.

He's just tryin' to stir stuff up. Nothing to see here.

 

[Sebct]

Now I know why I was never reunited with my iPod Touch I left on a plane once....

 

[ct2k7]

But then you have to look at what qualifies as dishonest, and what judges have decided in previous cases. Also this thread is hilarious, I can't decide if everyone is a troll or if everyone is a complete moron.

From the Theft Act 1968, s.2(1)(a)

"[No dishonesty] if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it..."

This is a subjective test. If the OP truly believes in "finders keepers" then he is not guilty. There may be a s.2(1)(c) point as well, but it is probably weak.

As I said, this is possibly a theft under UK law, but it is not certain.

OP has stated openly that he was dishonest in qualifying the property to aircrew staff, who would have authorisation in the process of returning the originating property to its rightful owner. In this case, I believe the lie would serve as the act of dishonesty.

Whilst it is a subjective test, a judge or jury would determine this, and neither I or you would have bearing over this. However, I believe these three conditions would need to be satisfied for dishonesty ultimately:

(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; or
(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

OP does not appear to fit the conditions.

 

[Frosticus]

*If* this story is true, it's not cool. Imagine if you were the person who had lost the iPad.

*If* this story is true, you should have handed it in as lost property. Shame on you for not.

*If* this story is true, bragging about theft is also not cool.

And lastly, *if* this is all true, I hope karma finds you and bites you in the a$$ because you'll deserve it.

 

[iStudentUK]

OP has stated openly that he was dishonest in qualifying the property to aircrew staff, who would have authorisation in the process of returning the originating property to its rightful owner. In this case, I believe the lie would serve as the act of dishonesty.

Whilst it is a subjective test, a judge or jury would determine this, and neither I or you would have bearing over this.

If I was charged for this I would certainly raise s.2(1)(a). It is a subjective test, the jury must decide what the defendant thought. Not what they, the jury, thinks. If the defendant genuinely believes he has the right to take it, it doesn't matter how silly that is, he is not guilty. If he believes "finders keepers" is law (which in this case it seems he may), and he can persuade a jury that is what he thought, that is all he needs to do. He would not be dishonest in the eyes of the law.

An item may also belong to the airline crew, but that is not automatic. They must have shown an intention to control items on the plane, something like signs saying where to take lost property or regular checks. This would probably be satisfied, but it doesn't change the original point that it is what the defendant thought that would be key here.

This happens all the time, whenever you get too much change in a shop you are guilty of theft when you realise later and keep it, unless this dishonesty point kicks in. Which means I have to return it, as I know I have no right in law to keep it!

Like I said, I'm not saying this isn't a theft under UK law. However, there are some points a defendant could realistically raise to avoid conviction, so to say as you did that "actually, it is theft in the UK" is not necessarily true.

 

[mcdj]

Yawn. Can a mod wasteland this nonsense? What flight attendant asks a passenger if something belongs to them?

OP, with the effort it took you to write that steaming pile of fantasy fiction, you could have come up with something equally ridiculous to add to your resume. Then maybe you wouldn't have to work part time at Cinnabon, and you could finally move out of your mom's basement. Oh crap, trailers don't have basements.

 

[hcho3]

So, finder is a keeper?

How pathetic these people have become....

 

[nomik2]

Ignore the troll...I don't believe his story, if it was true he'd have a picture of himself holding both iPads.

 

[ct2k7]

Actus rea is established.

If I was charged for this I would certainly raise s.2(1)(a). It is a subjective test, the jury must decide what the defendant thought. Not what they, the jury, thinks. If the defendant genuinely believes he has the right to take it, it doesn't matter how silly that is, he is not guilty. If he believes "finders keepers" is law, and he can persuade a jury that is what he thought, that is all he needs to do. He would not be dishonest in the eyes of the law.

You may raise it, however, you have the prove the requirements, probably using the Ghosh test, entirely subjective. However, it is not necessarily just about them. Would accused have known that others would know that defendant acted in a dishonest manner?

An item may also belong to the airline crew, but that is not automatic. They must have shown an intention to control items on the plane, something like signs saying where to take lost property or regular checks. This would probably be satisfied, but it doesn't change the original point that it is what the defendant thought that would be key here.

I'll see if I can find the case for this, but in a case study, I noted that the environment was controlled, i.e, such that there were active site staff. It is my understanding, and belief that the attendant asking the question satisfied the criteria.

This happens all the time, whenever you get too much change in a shop you are guilty of theft when you realise later and keep it, unless this dishonesty point kicks in. Which means I have to return it, as I know I have no right in law to keep it!

That would be correct, however, in most cases plaintiff will not go the way to claim against you.

Like I said, I'm not saying this isn't a theft under UK law. However, there are some points a defendant could realistically raise to avoid conviction, so to say as you did that "actually, it is theft in the UK" is not necessarily true.

I should maybe rephrase: "I believe that it is theft to a certain degree but not limited by dishonesty". Of course, we don't have all the necessary details, however, given the information we have, I believe that the criteria for theft are satisfied. Mens tea is satisfied.
I hereby conclude by amicus brief.

 

[brayhite]

I will say this: kudos to the OP for starting a healthy legal discussion. At least *something* positive came out of this.

 

[Frosticus]

If I was charged for this I would certainly raise s.2(1)(a). It is a subjective test, the jury must decide what the defendant thought. Not what they, the jury, thinks. If the defendant genuinely believes he has the right to take it, it doesn't matter how silly that is, he is not guilty. If he believes "finders keepers" is law (which in this case it seems he may), and he can persuade a jury that is what he thought, that is all he needs to do. He would not be dishonest in the eyes of the law.

An item may also belong to the airline crew, but that is not automatic. They must have shown an intention to control items on the plane, something like signs saying where to take lost property or regular checks. This would probably be satisfied, but it doesn't change the original point that it is what the defendant thought that would be key here.

This happens all the time, whenever you get too much change in a shop you are guilty of theft when you realise later and keep it, unless this dishonesty point kicks in. Which means I have to return it, as I know I have no right in law to keep it!

Like I said, I'm not saying this isn't a theft under UK law. However, there are some points a defendant could realistically raise to avoid conviction, so to say as you did that "actually, it is theft in the UK" is not necessarily true.

True, but in this case the OP has clearley demonstrated actus reus and menas rea, so would fail both of the basic tests and clearly doesn't have a leg to stand on. If this story is true, I hope someone prosecutes him.

But it was also my understanding that ignorance of the law is not a viable defence (referring to your example)..? but I'm no expert on this, just going on what I've picked up from my gf who is doing her LLB.

 

[kas23]

We've already had a post like this. I believe it was about 6-12 months back. No need to get excited this time.

 

[iStudentUK]

You may raise it, however, you have the prove the requirements, probably using the Ghosh test, entirely subjective. However, it is not necessarily just about them. Would accused have known that others would know that defendant acted in a dishonest manner?

Yes, Ghosh says by default use the ordinary meaning of dishonest, if it helps then apply the two stage test (dishonest by ordinary standards, did he realise that?). However, s.2 can be raised in addition to this if it is relevant. More information is needed. Why did he say "yes it is mine"? Was it to get rid of her and stop her taking it (probably theft) or was it because he thought "finders keeper! It is mine, keep out of this you!" (in which case we raise s.2(1)(a)). Was it a budget airline where seats are not assigned, or not? (in which case maybe s.2(1)(c) comes in).

I don't think we can decide on dishonesty without more information. It is up in the air at the moment.

The case for airline crew I was thinking of was Parker v British Airways Board (quite appropriate!). As I said, I think there would be enough to say the device would also be property belonging to them, for the purposes of the act.

True, but in this case the OP has clearley demonstrated actus reus and menas rea, so would fail both of the basic tests and clearly doesn't have a leg to stand on. If this story is true, I hope someone prosecutes him.

But it was also my understanding that ignorance of the law is not a viable defence (referring to your example)..? but I'm no expert on this, just going on what I've picked up from my gf who is doing her LLB.

Actus reus and mens rea are not "tests" as such. If s.2(1)(a) applies he is not dishonest and hence does not have the mens rea.

Ignorance is not normally an excuse. The Theft Act is a rare example of when ignorance of civil law is allowed, people aren't expected to know the details of legal title. So the law is a bit flexible. It is an interesting crime, you can even steal your own stuff and things you paid for!

 

[Fubar1977]

Obvious Troll is Obvious.
And getting quite an audience, sadly.

W A S T E L A N D T H R E A D

 

[Phil A.]

From the Theft Act 1968, s.2(1)(a)

"[No dishonesty] if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it..."

This is a subjective test. If the OP truly believes in "finders keepers" then he is not guilty. There may be a s.2(1)(c) point as well, but it is probably weak.

As I said, this would possibly be a theft under UK law, but it is not certain.

I've been revising theft this morning, this thread is proving quite useful!

I don't think you can use a belief in finders keepers in those circumstances: The clause means that you have genuine cause to believe you have a legal right to keep it, not some mis-belief in the laws of the land.

In other words, you believe something that would, in law, allow you to keep the item applies: For example, if something has been thrown away or abandoned by its owner, you can legally claim it.

An example of this would be taking something from a roadside waste bin: Someone may have thrown something away by accident but you have no way of knowing that and your belief is they've thrown it away and therefore abandoned it.

In those circumstances, you could put forward a defence that you believed the goods had been abandoned and you were therefore legally entitled to take them.

So, in this case, the only legal defence would be that you believed the owner had deliberately abandoned the iPad on the plane: I think you'd have some difficulty with that one...


Saying someone could use a belief in "finders keepers" as a defence is like saying someone could steal a load of stuff from a shop and then use a defence that they believed you could take anything that is on display for free: They may genuinely believe that but it's not true and it's no defence.

 

[ct2k7]

Yes, Ghosh says by default use the ordinary meaning of dishonest, if it helps then apply the two stage test (dishonest by ordinary standards, did he realise that?). However, s.2 can be raised in addition to this if it is relevant. More information is needed. Why did he say "yes it is mine"? Was it to get rid of her and stop her taking it (probably theft) or was it because he thought "finders keeper! It is mine, keep out of this you!" (in which case we raise s.2(1)(a)). Was it a budget airline where seats are not assigned, or not? (in which case maybe s.2(1)(c) comes in).

I don't think we can decide on dishonesty without more information. It is up in the air at the moment.

The case for airline crew I was thinking of was Parker v British Airways Board (quite appropriate!). As I said, I think there would be enough to say the device would also be property belonging to them, for the purposes of the act.

Ah I see where you're coming from. I need more coffee (it's quarter past 6 here)

I'll have a read on that case (it's not in my portfolio), but I'll get back to you Talking of theft.... iPhone 4?

 

[iStudentUK]

I don't think you can use a belief in finders keepers in those circumstances: The clause means that you have genuine cause to believe you have a legal right to keep it, not some mis-belief in the laws of the land

As I said above, this is a rare example of when ignorance of civil law is ok. It does not matter how unfounded the defendant's belief is, only that he genuinely believed it, in law. Of course, the more crazy it is the harder it is to persuade a jury.

If he had found the iPad in a park at midnight this defence would be quite easy, as it is it would be interesting, but still worth exploring.

Talking about waste bins, one case held that items in your bin outside have not been abandoned. A bin man could be convicted of theft from a bin on his rounds!

Ah I see where you're coming from. I need more coffee (it's quarter past 6 here)

I'll have a read on that case (it's not in my portfolio), but I'll get back to you

It isn't a criminal case. We did it in land law, but it is used as reference in criminal cases. It is all about a bracelet in an airport waiting room.

6:15? Has Oxford moved?!

 

[teleromeo]

 

[pradeepgj]

If this was true,

Please do the right thing....

If it was you who forgot your ipad2, how would you feel yo hear that the ipad2 was not found in the flight?

The person who lost it may not be rich. He may have bought this ipad2 in his hard yearned money.

Please do the right thing....

Call the airline. Tell them that you found an ipad and you would like to return it to the right owner. They may be able to track the complaint from the person who lost it. They may be able to arrange for the person to get it from you.

Please do the right thing....

 

[waremaster]

Wow, that's awful. You made no attempt to return it, and you even lied about it being your property. It's not like it would be hard to trace the owner, since the airline would would have records of seat numbers. That's just a crime of opportunity imo.




Do you see the irony in your post?

And the same goes for the OP they know who was sitting in that seat after the Owner lost his iPad what’s nice is they also have his home address and most likely credit card info. So it would be quite easy to report the OP to the appropriate authorities.

 

[g0odfr1end102]

It's mine, give it back!

 

[iphon4]

What is the point of this thread?

 

[ghostlyorb]

yeah... well nice getting an iPad 2. But lying about it.. and not TRYING to give it back to the owner.. not so great. But oh well!

 

[minimac]

Did you really have to post a new thread to try to be funny?

I believe the OP is referring to this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1003452/