Crown Courts
| Published date | 01 April 1973 |
| Date | 01 April 1973 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201837303700203 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Crown Courts
REMOVAL
OF
CAR
FROM
POLICE
POUND
R. v. Meredith
THIS case was unusual because it raised the question of an
owner removing his
car
from the Police
pound
where it
had
been
placed following
The
Motor
Vehicles (Conveyance &Use)
Regulations
(95)
1969
and
the Removal
and
Disposal of Vehicles
Regulations (3, 4) 1968.
The
defendant
had
left his
car
in a street
whilst attending a
match
at
the Maine
Road
football ground on a
Saturday
afternoon; the
car
had
been removed as being an obstruc-
tion, placed in the pound for
Platt
Lane Police Station, secured
with a"krook-lock",
and
its particulars duly entered.
The
defen-
dant,
between five
and
six
0'
clock in the evening, made several
attempts to queue for his car,
and
apparently finding the "krook-
lock" loose, drove the
car
away
and
said nothing about it. He did
not
contact the police during the Sunday
and
was arrested early
the following Monday.
He faced two charges of Theft, i.e. for the lock
and
for the
car, with an alternative count relating to removing.
The
Judge, in
areserved finding after legal argument, said
that
the Statutory
Instruction fixed a
£4
payment to secure release from the pound
after obstruction. An owner could call at the police office
and
pay
this
sum;
he could refuse to pay
and
face a prosecution
and
possible
fine
and
costs over
and
above the
£4;
or he could agree to pay
later.
In
all three cases the owner must have his
car
returned.
Theft
did not arise, i.e. a dishonest appropriation of "property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving
the other of
it".
The
defendant
had
an honest belief
that
he
had
aright to
take
the
car;
this being his defence.
The
Judge
considered
that
the "krook-Iock"
had
been in the
defendant's keepingso short a time
that
no inferences arose.
During
the
argument
the old offence of
"pound
breach" was referred
to;
which does include such chattels as furniture or
motor
cars.
"Pound
breach is
the
retaking from the custody of the law achattel which
has been impounded" (12 Halsbury's Laws
3rd
Ed. p. 154).
It
was therefore an offence against the dignity of the
Law
and
no
question of dishonesty arose.
Judge
da
Cunha
reserved his findings.
The
Jury
were directed to
return
aformal verdict of Not
Guilty on each count.
Queen's Counsel
and
a
Junior
were employed by Prosecution
and
Defence. An argument arose as to the allocation of costs,
84
To continue reading
Request your trial