If someone takes your car without permission goes for a drive and returns to the same spot an hour later… Was your car stolen? Or would the correct definition be, attempted theft?
Updated story
Friend's friend had car moved from a work car park down, to a spot down the road. Car was pushed as they could not start it (immobilizer). Suspecion that the purpertrators will return to finish the job…. Was the car stolen? Or was it just attempted theft?
Unlawful Use [in SA]
Unauthorised joy ride
Was it a self driving car?
If you look in the legislation the definition of stolen motor vehicle is something like take or drive without the consent of the owner - so yes by your scenario it is stolen.
This is different to normal stealing of other items which require that there is an intention to permanently deprive the owner of possession to prove the offence.
so i can "borrow" my neighbour's mower each weekend and i'm not stealing?
Its not stealing if you intend or do actually return it. But it would be trespassing.
If it's one of those big sit down lawn mowers does it count as a motor vehicle
@mcnugged: It depends if it has/could have conditional registration. If not then its just a lawn mower.
Is there a story behind this question?
There always is isn't there? I'm guessing it's either the ex gf/wife or a mate they've had a bust up with.
I'm betting on kids after dad said "No! You cant have the car tonight…"
nah, housemate 'borrowed' it
@dcep: Speaking of Housemate…
Theft - by Anyone you allow
into your home - can VOID your
Insurance on that theft, eg,
RAA Home & Contents cover.
Donno if "I think I left it
on back-varanda when I went
inside for 15 min" is a work-
around, assuming you -don't-
have 2m fencing around yard.
To cut the premium, lots have
huge Deductables. That cover
is usually to protect you from
any highly destructive fire
from bankrupting you, but you'd
lose every time someone steals
from you, less than deductable
threshhold.
@capslock janitor: IVI is in South Australia. Quite common to have a Mitsubishi Verada or two around the house, usually propped up with some limestone blocks. Hence the reference to the Black Verada.
They stole the KM's i guess
Was your car stolen?
As usual a quick Google finds the answer.
Motor vehicle theft is defined as
the taking of another person’s motor vehicle illegally and without permission, with the intent of temporarily or permanently depriving the owner/possessor of the use of the motor vehicle
Whether joyriding is considered theft you need to look at your particular state/country laws on the definition of theft in VIC under the Crimes Act 1958 s 73(14) deems the act of joyriding as an intention to permanently deprive a person of property because the ordinary definition of theft VIC adopted from the common law definition did not consider joyriding permanently depriving a person of property.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/…
What’s the definition of permission, are you referring to a relative , lover, friend, stranger
While I get what you are trying to say, it’s not entirely correct. Just because a person is known to you does not automatically make it something other than theft.
It is entirely possible that family members can steal items from other family members. Gambling debts and drug addiction is two huge factors in people stealing from their own family.
Yeah, I'm 40 and this guy I know from high school, haven't talked to him in 20 years, he nicked my car the other day. Saw him doing it, caught it on camera. Called the cops and I explained the situation. They informed me that sadly my ability to identify him meant he could take literally anything from me without any repercussions.
That's not correct at all. You may have come across police that couldn't be bothered.
You absolutely can identify someone who steals your stuff.
Otherwise, you could rob anyone once you introduce yourself to them.
Not true.
I once killed JFK and when they questioned me I told them I saw him on TV once and they were like "no way, damn it, we can't pin this on you, I guess we'll find some three named loser" and I was scott free.
@DonWilson: Lovely to meet you Scott…. Or is it Mr Free?
What do you call yourself these days?
(Dad jokes are strong with me these days)
I recall an element of stealing is intending to permanently deprive the owner of the item, so seems like a no.
Did you attemd Trump University - just make stuff up and pass it off as knowledge?
Problem is, you need to keep reading the subsequent sections which specifically deal with aircraft and motor vehicles. Section 72 is just the definition of (generic) theft, not the offence.
@endotherm: Yeah I saw your post below. I was just talking about theft/stealing generally, hadnt gone to the extent of looking it up at that stage.
@djkelly69: So then you didn't really "remember what was in the crimes act" as you claimed, but rather looked something up hastily and tried to pass it off as knowledge.
@CocaKoala: No, I recalled it from memory as stated. When chumlee accused me of making it up, I looked it up.
"the taking of another person’s motor vehicle illegally and without permission, with the intent of temporarily or permanently depriving the owner/possessor of the use of the motor vehicle"
@chumlee: Cool.
Anything to contradict my statement that intention to permanently deprive is an element of theft/stealing as I stated?
@djkelly69: Pathetic argument, but I can indeed see what you said and you did indeed say it seems like it was stolen.
Well when the joy ride was taking place, you could of very much called the police/went and made a police report.
The car was taken and driven away without your consent, and at that time you didn't know the theft's intention.
There's no difference to what you described whether the theft took the car around the block or around Australia.
I'd compare this situation to someone browsing jewellery at the shops and running for the exit only to stop at the end to browse another item. The shop would of had the full rights to raise the alarm for security.
(Example of above scenario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy8v4YI1C6s)
If they took it and returned it to the same place, it is not stolen. At best it was unauthorised use (illegal use of a motor vehicle (joy-riding)). They took it and returned it to the same place. It would be easy to show that they had no "intention" of "permanently depriving" you of this vehicle.
From Armstrong Legal's website;
What Actions Might Constitute “Stealing a Motor Vehicle or Vessel”?
- The main difference between this offence and joyriding, is that this offence requires that you had the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the motor vehicle or vessel (ie to not return it or give it back).
And also;
What the Police Must Prove:
To convict you of Stealing a Motor Vehicle or Vessel, the prosecution must prove each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt:
- That you stole a motor vehicle or vessel;
- With the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the motor vehicle or vessel;
..and that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the thread.
No. VICTORIA specifically has a law in relation to taking cars and aircraft. Normally theft is
Section 74(14)(a) of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 provides an exception for the last point of proof:
…in any proceedings
—
(a)
for stealing a motor vehicle or an aircraft
proof that the person charged took or in any
manner used the motor vehicle or aircraft
without the consent of the owner or person in
lawful possession thereof shall be conclusive
evidence that the person charged intended to
permanently deprive the owner of it…
Again, as you always tend to do, is omit facts or details.
The start of Vic Crimes Act 1958, Division 2, Rule 73 (14) says; (not "74" as you are quoting)
(14) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (12) in any proceedings
Which says;
(12) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights;
There was no "outright taking" or treating it as their own to dispose. The mere fact that it was returned suggests that there was no intention to treat the thing as his own and deprive anyone of the vehicle permanently or to dispose of it.
You know, because that's what "12" says and that "14" refers back to… It would be a very, very long stretch for any prosecutor to make those charges stick if the vehicle was taken and then returned to its same position "an hour later".
"Beyond a reasonable doubt…"
OP's case would not even make it off the officers desk, let alone to court, but if it did, OP should glad that you are not their lawyer…
PS: The law also refers to "he", does this mean that all "women" are not able to be charged under this law?
@pegaxs: Section 73, Subsection 14. It's an actual crime, not a rule.
"Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (12) in any proceedings" means "despite what we said in section 12, section 14 takes it further and modifies it and takes precedence over what was said before". In "ordinary" theft cases, intention to permanently deprive is absolutely a thing that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In Victoria, taking an aircraft or car is automatically, by virtue of sub-section 14, deemed to be evidence of intention to permanently deprive. You might not like that, but it is the fact. I'm not making it up, I'm not omitting facts or details as you allege. It's not a long stretch, and the easiest thing in the world for a prosecutor in Victoria to prove. Despite your feelings on the matter. Go ask someone that actually works directly with Victorian law. Your comments are just a bunch of "I reckon…". I'm stating the legislation verbatim.
took or in any manner used
without consent
shall be conclusive evidence [of] intention to permanently deprive
When you learn to read and interpret Victorian law, one of the first things you learn is that reference to "he" automatically includes "she" or any other pronoun you want to invent. I'm not obliged to teach you law or how to lawyer in Victoria!
The link is legal advice for NSW. OP is from Victoria. Police only need to prove it was appropriated. S74 automatically provides the proof for "intention to permanently deprive".
From the "Victorian" section of their help page
What the Police Must Prove:
To find you guilty of Theft, the prosecution must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- You appropriated property;
- That belonged to another person;
- You had the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property; and
- You had a dishonest state of mind.
1: Not disagreeing there. Vehicle was taken
2: Same here. I agree that for the sake of the story, it belonged to someone else
3: Nope. It was taken and returned to the same position an hour later. No "intent" to "permanently deprive."
4: Nope. They may have borrowed it before without issue and thought it was ok.
Either way, I'm not going to indulge you any further and can rattle on to your own content. I am not saying you are wrong, as some cases, this would absolutely be the course of actions. But someone borrowing a car and returning it an hour later, back to its original position, I'm not buying it was outright "theft".
Quoting a NSW lawyers webpage to trump the actual Victorian legislation. Are you serious? How many theft of motor car cases have you prosecuted in Victoria and successfully won, without lifting a finger to prove "intention to permanently deprive"? None. I can safely say I have seen the prosecution win many such cases.
Sorry, it is Section 73, it was a typo I accidentally copied forward.
I know things are different in NSW. There is no concept of joyriding in Victoria. The Victorian legislation specifically removes the need to prove an intention to permanently deprive and you are deemed to have done that if you prove the other points of proof. It's not what you THINK qualifies as an intention. It is specified in BLACK AND WHITE. The court is obliged to accept it.
@pegaxs: Petulantly stamping your feet and sooking about it doesn't change the facts.
You are constantly citing the law as it pertains to (ordinary) theft, in all cases except theft/attempted theft of a motor car or an aircraft. Try and get your head around it. There is a specific law for it. It overrides/modifies/expands the other one! You are trying to make out that they have legislated an offence and definition in one section, then in a subsequent section they get more specific for a specific set of circumstances, but we have to ignore that because of what they said earlier. The later sections are obviously just to fill in some extra pages and don't really mean anything.
Just because some random lawyer's web page contains some summary writings (a basic, catch-all explanation of the law without any nuance), how do you think that is more valuable than citing, I don't know, THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION, VERBATIM?!?! I read it, it is talking about theft in general, and does not address theft of motor car or aircraft at all. It is also wrong for them to state or imply that the police have to prove intention to permanently deprive in all cases. They do have to in all cases except theft/attempted theft of motor cars and aircraft. Their omission on the subject doesn't make what I'm quoting untrue. You are like the others on here that like to quote the "20 questions" learn-to-drive booklet issued by the licensing authority in your state instead of the actual legislation, as though it carries more authority.
Go call them and ask them specifically. I'll wait for your apology.
Typically when an argument starts not going your way, you put the burden onto me to run around for you and do your research for you. Yeah sure, I'll access the court records on a Saturday afternoon for you to prove a point for some random doubter in an internet forum. I've been there in court on multiple occasions over decades. I've seen the charges, I've seen the results. I've heard and even given sworn evidence. It made it off the police investigators desk, through supervisor's reviews and all the way to the prosecutor. It wasn't laughed out of court, there wasn't a "police warning" issued, there was an actual conviction and penalty. Why don't YOU cite me one case in a Victorian Court where Section 73(14)(a) didn't apply, rather than calling bullshit and insulting me.
I'm not going to share my personal information on a public forum, but I've had my motorcycle stolen. The offender was arrested and charged, and appeared at Melbourne Magistrates Court. I was present. No evidence was ever given relating to having permanently deprived me of it. He was convicted. This is not an unusual set of circumstances, I implore you to research it for yourself. Once you "assume the rights of the owner" (take it), it no longer matters what your state of mind is, what you intended, or when or where you return it. The offence is complete. The point of proof is statutorily proven without having to utter a word or offer any other evidence.
A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
"iT'z iN bLaCk aNd wHiTe!!11!1!!"
Sure, for generic theft. Never disputed that for ordinary cases of theft. For theft of motor vehicle/aircraft there's a whole new specific BLACK AND WHITE law that applies and supersedes that section:
in any proceedings for stealing a motor vehicle or an aircraft proof that the person charged took or in any manner used the motor vehicle or aircraft without the consent of the owner or person in lawful possession thereof shall be conclusive evidence that the person charged intended to permanently deprive the owner of it
I'm quoting the ACTUAL legislation iN bLaCk aNd wHiTe!, not offering some personal opinion or some generic catch-all lawyers pitch to potential clients. Not a single word of "how long" or "where it is returned" appears in the legislation. Go get your slimy lawyer to waste the court's time and try to argue about intentions and disposal. That would be an actual case of "a very, very long stretch" of an argument, and a waste of time. It is already legislated for the prosecution that "intention to permanently deprive" is pre-proven beyond reasonable doubt, and arguments about it won't be entertained by the court. Better to waste your time on convincing the Court what a good boy the client is.
You are a time-waster when the argument doesn't go your way. You demand some QC-grade legal argument worthy of convincing the High Court, in a random social media forum with participants of all ages of mixed intelligence/knowledge on the subject. Everyone else seems to get away with a short one-sentence "Twitter" mind-fart to express an idea, but you accuse me of being dishonest and withholding pertinent facts/details when I make it short, relevant and to the point. I don't know what I am supposed to be hiding when all I am doing is QUOTING THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION, cut-and-pasted even!
These days I avoid replying to posts where you are on one of your high and mighty rant crusades, even though I often agree with your sentiments and may even upvote your comments at times. This post was clearly an exception, where the information/opinions expressed by many are clearly wrong. I was, in fact, replying to tshow's remark that "the science is settled and the thread is closed", to paraphrase. Most posters are clearly unaware of this provision of the Victorian Crimes Act. I, along with one or two others in this thread, pointed out this relevant section, though only I was subject to abuse and derision.
@pegaxs: Typical. Not the first time you lost an argument, then took your bat and ball and went home. Though not before a quick insult about it being nonsense, and "I'm not going to bother to read it", because you can't argue against my position.
Sorry about the brevity of the wall of rubbish, must be a case of one of those accusations of always omitting facts or details.
@pegaxs: Thanks for the private attack/reply, and blocking a response. Seems to be a lot of reading/replying to something you have blocked/ignored. Also seems to me to be a clear cut case of a gutless sucker-punch swipe at me before running away with your bat and ball, trying to avoid retaliation.
You really are an A grade idiot.
pegaxs on Sat, 07/03/2020 - 21:52How's this for a wall of text?
I'll wait for your apology.
You will (profanity) die waiting before I EVER aplogise to you. For anything. Period.
Typical. Not the first time you lost an argument, then took your bat and ball and went home.
I'm not taking my bat and ball… and I certainly am not "losing" anything, especially not to you, of all people. I just find there's no point talking to a pig headed (profanity), with their heads so far up their own arse, they could basically lick the back of their own tonsils. I would never and have never lost an argument to you, but I have realised that once you start in with the snide personal remarks, it's a sure sign you are losing your shit and clutching at straws.
YOU are the one that started with the profanity, name-calling and condescension. People that resort to that in an argument are the LOSERS. Go back through the thread and point it out to me. You are the one having problems with the truth.
You're wrong, will always be wrong and have always been wrong. I'm out of the conversation because you will never see just how wrong you are and I will NEVER submit to your version of anything, so there is no point in continuing the conversation based on the staggering amount of pointlessness. I would sooner commit seppuku than ever to admit you are right.
It. Will. Never. (profanity). Happen.
Again please tell me where I'm wrong. My first post, a reply to tshow actually, lays out that in Victoria, theft generally has the requirement to prove intention to permanently deprive. However in the second half, I point out that a separate section of the act lays out a different requirement for theft/attempted theft of motor vehicles and aircraft — THERE IS NO NEED TO PROVE INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE IN THAT CASE. You are the one being pointless — a refusal to see and accept there is a provision in the act that overrides this general requirement. Your argument is like saying NO ONE can ever speed. Yet emergency vehicles are permitted to do so because there is another law in the act that overrides the general requirement and permits it in certain circumstances by authorised groups.
YOU only see the first law spelled out and refuse to see beyond that, quoting it as the be all and end all to anyone pointing out that there is an exception. YOU are the one cherry-picking generic explanations on random lawyer sites, using that to support your argument but ignoring anything that supports or opposes my position. THEIR OPINIONS DON'T OVERRIDE THE STATUTE! An absence of a reference to this exception in their websites is NOT proof of me being wrong. Show me a High Court decision that differs from my opinion, I might take notice.
Though not before a quick insult about it being nonsense
(profanity) me, are you really that pathetic? YOU are the one that started with the personal insults. You were the one that started making it personal. Why the (profanity) should I read your post if the very first line of it is a (profanity) insult?
YOU are acting like a child, with childish insults, language and repeating an erroneous statement over and over. That's not "making it personal", I'm describing your belligerent attitude. You're dreaming if you think "I started it".
"I'm not going to bother to read it", because you can't argue against my position.
Are you really that conceited? I'm not arguing against you based on your reluctance to stay on topic and not devolve into petty, personal jabs. I'm not arguing against you, because it's like trying to convince an idiot that licking windows is bad. Just keep licking that window, ok.
Point out where I've gone off topic. You are the one making childish condescending jabs at me. And you aren't trying to convince me of anything, just dismissing what I'm saying because you disagree with it. Just because you want to stop reading the law after point A, it doesn't make point B invalid.
I'm not continuing the conversation with you because my point has been made. Anything you want to bring up is moot at this point. You are doing nothing more than making snide remarks to incite me into replying. All of this because every time I have encountered you in the past, I've made you look like an idiot.
Still not sure what your point is, you aren't listening to me or anyone else that has pointed out the S73(14)(a) exception. I'm not the one that has ended up looking like the idiot. As you have done in the past, you want to argue about the thing YOU want to argue about, and ignore anything else. If someone raises a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POINT you won't address that at all, but will keep harping on about your original position. I'm not sure it even registers with you if something new or unexpected is presented to you.
You have so much butt hurt, honestly. I'll just add you to the list of know nothing forums idiots that inhabit this place. You wont be missed. And I am sure, in time, that I will make you look like an idiot again, like I usually do, but for now, you're not worth the time.
Yet you're still replying to me, and still keeping up the hit-and-run drive-by insults. Evidently in your language BLOCKED and IGNORE doesn't mean what you think it means. And I'm supposed to be the know-nothing idiot?
For the record;
You are still soooo (profanity) wrong, it's almost cringe worthy watching you rant on with whatever shit you are, trying to convince/convert me. My point stands and there is no more I can add.
No I'm not wrong, and you can't tell me why I'm wrong, nor have you even tried. Dismissing a valid, relevant and applicable section of the Crimes Act as "shit" is such a brilliant legal gambit — I must remember that one to use next time I go to court. They'll have no come-back for that piece of genius.
"INTENT", "PERMANENTLY DEPRIVED", "DISHONESTLY", "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". It's in the crimes act and reiterated on nearly every single lawyer's web page I can find.
YES, yes it is. Never said it wasn't, and I specifically said so myself. But it applies to thefts OTHER THAN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT. The problem is those requirements don't all apply to MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT theft cases. But you won't accept there is a specific part of the act that is applicable to those situations and PERMANENTLY DEPRIVED is conclusively proven the moment you "use" the vehicle in any way — up to and including taking it and driving it and returning it an hour later.
Now, begone troll. Let thine trollery bother me no more :)
Yet it does seem to bother you. If not wanting to hear the truth and name-calling helps you sleep better at night, go for it. I've been threatened and called worse by better people than you.
Okay, let me take your stuff, I'll return it to you in 100 years time.
It depends. If it was an old BMW I would have been disappointed they brought it back.
You owe me a drink. I spat out my drink reading this.
they also stole fuel
decreased the value of ur car
and dirty it
you should report to police and lock them up
20 years jail at least
should bring the death penalty
That kind of punishment is reserved for journalists who expose war crimes and government corruption.
nah its reserved for forum trolls
gulp
gulp
Come on guys… I expected more support. If the car was found… It was not stolen right?
The original question and the "update" you posted in your original post are two totally different and unrelated circumstances.
With this comment and your subsequent ones below, I'm now convinced it is all just a troll.
whats your address, i am coming to steal/borrow your tv and return it in 10 years, which you will then find it, and thus is cant be stolen.
if you took someones car without permission you stole it imho.
If, for example, a car is stolen and found dumped 50km away, it was still stolen, despite the fact that is has been located.
Therefore, I don't think the definition of theft has to include moving the object a certain distance. The fact that it was located doest change the fact that is was stolen.
If you moved your mates car as a practical joke, then just tell him!
Generally, theft is taking with the intent to permanently deprive the owner. However at at some point in the past so called 'joy riders' were being found not guilty as their defence in court as that were returning the vehicle (or intending to return the vehicle). Then the law was of theft was changed specifically for motor vehicles. So this case could be theft.
However there are also circumstances where it is legal to move a motor vehicle without consent of the owner - think illegal parking or emergency situations.
It doesn't sound like a common enough situation that Ozbargainers could advise on, even if you shared all the details. Even if it was illegal, the police might not take action if it was a minor breach and no harm was done.
Parent - you stole my car.
Adult child - I’ll ask ozBargain
Parent: when will you move out, im sure you are old enough
Adult Child : i am only 36
Well, 36 is the new 15.
If it was a Holden Cruze I'd report it to the police if the thief brought it back.
Is the car a Falcon FG XR6 Turbo?
Best Friend Stole Car and Went on Joyrides Stealing Fuel and Thrashing The Car
Well if you didn’t leave your car keys display in sight for opportunist joy riders…
For what you have described the charge would be "unlawful use of"
Thanks for the support
So your hypothetical situation and what actually happened are not related then…
Nope haha
Maybe done by someone they know as a joke.
Friend's friend had car moved from a work car park down, to a spot down the road.
You sure your friend's friend didn't happen to park his car in someone else's spot?
Would it make any difference if the friend's friend's car was moved to a parking spot of a friend of another friend of the original friend, i.e. the car owner? Does the legislation make allowances for friendship scenarios?
Would it make any difference…?
OP says in his update that:
Car was pushed as they could not start it (immobilizer). Suspecion that the purpertrators will return to finish the job….
If the car was parked in someone else's spot, it wouldn't be surprising if the angry owner of the space forcibly moved the car in whatever way they could. That is, there is no "job" to finish.
How old is the car? Coulda been an innocent mistake from someone with same make and model
some times thieves use strangers cars to finish the job and return. so they are less visible
Sounds like the car was towed out of a private spot?
Stolen but found.
As Dr Phil says when a teenager borrows their parents car for a joyride, "It's a criminal offence and is grand theft auto"
You ask two questions then provide a yes or no….
The answer is yes… your vehicle was stolen. It could have been used in a drive-by. It could have been used in a robbery. You could have speeding fines attached.
Report it to police, because you may be up for a lot of money.
It could have been in a collision. Who knows. But it is theft of your property without authorisation.
But wouldn't the correct definition be attempted theft? Was located before the authorities were called…
Question, if your car was stolen and you claimed insurance and your car was found later on, do you return the money or you get to keep both?
I'd say once payment is made to the former owner, the deal is done. If the car is subsequently found it becomes the property of the insurance company, who will sell it at auction.
If the former owner was particularly attached to their old car, they could always bid online for it when it came to auction, possibly (or not) making a small profit, albeit the car still being in a similar condition as when it was stolen.
Yeah, "criminal always returns to the scene" seems to be relevant. Might want to check how this happened and if more security is needed.
It differs from state to state in WA it used to be called unlawful use of a motor vehicle as the intent to permanently deprive couldn't be proved. Years ago the intent to permanently deprive was dropped see below.
371A. Special case: Motor vehicles
(1) A person who unlawfully
(a) uses a motor vehicle; or
(b) takes a motor vehicle for the purposes of using it; or
(c) drives or otherwise assumes control of a motor vehicle,
without the consent of the owner or the person in charge of that motor vehicle, is said to steal that motor vehicle.
(2) This section has effect in addition to section 371 and does not prevent section 371 from applying to motor vehicles.
Borrowed without permission.