Car stolen by son - advised not covered

gordikin

Unless you are of another world...!

Scooby_Doo.

Incyder wrote: »

The law that was applied when he was convicted in court. If the Judge had been convinced he intended to bring it back and had just borrowed it then he would not have found him guilty of aggravated theft.

Are you trolling or just a fist?

Theft = son took the car with the intent to permanently deprive the OP of it or it was proven he took it with that intent.

TWOC = son took the car and either brought it back before discovered or theft could not be proved.

Aggravated TWOC = as above but he crashed it or failed to stop for the police.

Never heard of aggravated theft before.

Incyder

d123 wrote: »

I know they can, it was a rhetorical question.
So how does that work when you said:
Your statements directly contradict each other.
Unlicensed drivers can be prosecuted for driving offences.

They can. But let me give you an example you may understand. A person that has not passed a test will not be charged with careless driving for instance.
As they have not been proven (tested) to a certain level then they will not be judged against that level. They may be charged with the relevant no licence/insurance/damage caused/drunk etc charges but will not be judged on their ability to drive, e.g careless/reckless

hollie.weimeraner

Scooby_Doo. wrote: »

Are you trolling or just a fist?

Theft = son took the car with the intent to permanently deprive the OP of it or it was proven he took it with that intent.

TWOC = son took the car and either brought it back before discovered or theft could not be proved.

Aggravated TWOC = as above but he crashed it or failed to stop for the police.

Never heard of aggravated theft before.

TWOC was introduced as a stand alone offence in order to get around the fact that taking and returning a vehicle did not constitute theft (permanently depriving etc etc).

The offence committed by this lad is not aggravated theft but aggravated vehicle taking and I am assuming the op hs misinterpreted the offence as it is actually under the theft act as below if you wish to read it

New offence of aggravated vehicle-taking.E+W
(1)After section 12 of the M1Theft Act 1968 (taking conveyances without authority) there shall be inserted the following section—
“12A Aggravated vehicle-taking.

(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, a person is guilty of aggravated taking of a vehicle if—
(a)he commits an offence under section 12(1) above (in this section referred to as a “basic offence”) in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle; and
(b)it is proved that, at any time after the vehicle was unlawfully taken (whether by him or another) and before it was recovered, the vehicle was driven, or injury or damage was caused, in one or more of the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) below.
(2)The circumstances referred to in subsection (1)(b) above are—
(a)that the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place;
(b)that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which injury was caused to any person;
(c)that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which damage was caused to any property, other than the vehicle;
(d)that damage was caused to the vehicle.
(3)A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if he proves that, as regards any such proven driving, injury or damage as is referred to in subsection (1)(b) above, either—
(a)the driving, accident or damage referred to in subsection (2) above occurred before he committed the basic offence; or
(b)he was neither in nor on nor in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle when that driving, accident or damage occurred.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or, if it is proved that, in circumstances falling within subsection (2)(b) above, the accident caused the death of the person concerned, five years.
(5)If a person who is charged with an offence under this section is found not guilty of that offence but it is proved that he committed a basic offence, he may be convicted of the basic offence.
(6)If by virtue of subsection (5) above a person is convicted of a basic offence before the Crown Court, that court shall have the same powers and duties as a magistrates’ court would have had on convicting him of such an offence.
(7)For the purposes of this section a vehicle is driven dangerously if—
(a)it is driven in a way which falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver; and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in that way would be dangerous.
(8)For the purposes of this section a vehicle is recovered when it is restored to its owner or to other lawful possession or custody; and in this subsection “owner” has the same meaning as in section 12 above.”
(2)The provisions of subsection (4) of section 12A of the M2Theft Act 1968 are without prejudice to the operation of—
(a)[F1section 127 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000] (under which a Crown Court has a general power to fine an offender convicted on indictment); and
(b)section 17 of, and Schedule 1 to, the M3Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (under which, with certain exceptions not material to section 12A, offences under the Theft Act 1968 are triable either way).
(3)Nothing in section 12A of the M4Theft Act 1968 applies to—
(a)an offence under section 12(1) of that Act which was committed before this section comes into force; or
(b)any driving, injury or damage which occurred before this section comes into force.

vaio

Incyder wrote: »

They can. But let me give you an example you may understand. A person that has not passed a test will not be charged with careless driving for instance.
As they have not been proven (tested) to a certain level then they will not be judged against that level. They may be charged with the relevant no licence/insurance/damage caused/drunk etc charges but will not be judged on their ability to drive, e.g careless/reckless

Presumably that logic doesn't apply to dangerous driving?

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Unlicensed-driver-ran-red-lights-hit-van-ignored-road-signs-12-mile-police-chase/article-630100-detail/article.html

Incyder

and there is no such offence as Joy Riding.

RuthnJasper

d123 wrote: »

Unlicensed drivers can be prosecuted for driving offences.

I should bl**dy-well hope so! Otherwise - Incyder - why would ANY of us ever need to take a driving test and earn a licence?!?

Scooby_Doo.

Incyder wrote: »

They can. But let me give you an example you may understand. A person that has not passed a test will not be charged with careless driving for instance.
As they have not been proven (tested) to a certain level then they will not be judged against that level. They may be charged with the relevant no licence/insurance/damage caused/drunk etc charges but will not be judged on their ability to drive, e.g careless/reckless

Bo11ocks

Reckless was replace with dangrous years ago and unlicenced persons are charged with that offence.

Where do you get [STRIKE]your facts[/STRIKE] this crap from?

Incyder

Have another read, get a grown up to help you.

Scooby_Doo.

The bench mark is a competent driver the individual doesn't need to side a driving test to be convicted.