R (Rickets) v Basildon Magistrates' Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS,LORD JUSTICE MOSES |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 2358 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/13804/2009 |
| Date | 14 July 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 2358 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Before: Lord Justice Moses
Mr Justice Wyn Williams
CO/13804/2009
Mr S Field (instructed by S J Law) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr G Pounder (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
: In these proceedings the claimant seeks an order to quash the decision made by Basildon Magistrates' Court to commit the claimant to the Crown Court for trial on two charges of theft. The charges preferred against the claimant were, first, that he had stolen property belonging to the British Heart Foundation and, second, that he had stolen property belonging to Oxfam.
The evidence before the magistrates at the committal hearing consisted of a number of witness statements. Specifically, there were witness statements from a number of police officers and a civilian. There were however no witness statements from any person connected with or employed by either the British Heart Foundation or Oxfam.
In summary, the evidence put before the magistrates by the prosecution was to the following effect. At approximately 2.15 am on Wednesday 17 June 2009 the claimant was observed to be acting suspiciously in Brentwood High Street. A police officer who was monitoring the CCTV cameras in the street saw the claimant searching through items which had been left outside but very close to the charity shop operated by the British Heart Foundation. The officer decided to keep watch on the claimant. He saw him take a suitcase from the vicinity of the shop to a car which was parked nearby and then drive the car away. The officer who was monitoring the CCTV camera passed on what he had seen to other officers.
In due course police officers in a police vehicle stopped the car in which the claimant was travelling. A perfunctory search revealed that there were bags of items filling up the rear seat of the car. When asked what he had been doing, the claimant told the police officers that he had been collecting things to sell at a boot fair. He volunteered the fact that he had removed items from outside the British Heart Foundation shop and that he had also taken items from outside a second shop. At that stage the claimant offered to show the officers the location of that second shop. The officers soon discovered that the claimant had been taking items from the rear of the shop run by Oxfam. A total of six bags containing miscellaneous items were recovered from the claimant's car. The suitcase to which I referred earlier was also recovered and the suitcase contained some items of clothing.
The claimant was arrested. During the course of his interview under caution he admitted taking the items which had been recovered. In relation to the items taken from the vicinity of the Oxfam shop, the claimant said he had taken the items from bins which were positioned at the rear of the shop. Following the interview under caution, the claimant was charged with the offences to which I have referred.
At the committal proceedings the claimant's legal representatives submitted to the magistrates that there was no evidence upon which it could properly be concluded that the property taken by the claimant belonged to the British Heart Foundation (as in the first charge) or Oxfam (as in the second charge). Accordingly, it was submitted that an essential ingredient of the offence charged against the claimant could not be proved.
A person commits theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. There is no dispute in this case that the claimant appropriated property and that he intended to sell it. If the property belonged to another, the claimant had the intention of permanently depriving the other of his property. It is also accepted that it would be open to a jury to conclude that the claimant had acted dishonesty. Accordingly, the sole issue in dispute is whether or not there was evidence to justify a conclusion that the property belonged to another.
Section 5 of the Theft Act 1968 is in the following terms so far as material:
“(1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest ….. “
In this court Mr Field, who has acted for the claimant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Donald Toleikis
...instant case. 12 There is a decision of the Divisional Court in R v (on the application of) Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates' Court [2010] EWHC 2358 (Admin) which dealt with the position of clothes left outside a charity shop. That is a very different circumstance to that which applies in th......
-
Transitioning towards circular systems: property rights in waste
...(on the applicationof Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates’Court (2010), R (on the applicationof Ricketts)v Basildon Magistrates’Court[2010] EWHC 2358 (Admin).R v Terry Rostron, John Mark Collinson(2003), R v Terry Rostron, John Mark Collinson [2003] EWCACrim 2206.R v Toleikis (Donald)(2013), R......