Confusing question

[Coatigan]

Seems there are at least two ways of looking at this,

There are Only two ways at looking at this.

The right way (£100). And the wrong way (everything else).

 

[Chippy_boy]

There are Only two ways at looking at this.

The right way (£100). And the wrong way (everything else).

Exactly.

What did the store have originally? Goods to the value of X and cash to the value of Y.

What does it have afterwards? Goods to the value of X minus £70 and cash to the value of Y minus £30.

 

[Blue Mist]

The criminal act is taking the money from the till, not leaving the shop. Try going down to ASDA and snatching the money out of an open till, walk round the shop and then putting the money back with a jokey smile!

It isn't. The criminal act is the intent. The theft act states you have to intend to permanently deprive the person of the property. Merely taking it from the till does not prove you intend to steal it. It is why in 1968 the law relating to car theft was changed. 'Taking a Vehicle Without Consent' became law because the police could not charge theft for joyriders. Similarly, a shoplifter has to leave the shop before he can be arrested for theft, not that he ever is these days.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

It isn't. The criminal act is the intent. The theft act states you have to intend to permanently deprive the person of the property. Merely taking it from the till does not prove you intend to steal it. It is why in 1968 the law relating to car theft was changed. 'Taking a Vehicle Without Consent' became law because the police could not charge theft for joyriders. Similarly, a shoplifter has to leave the shop before he can be arrested for theft, not that he ever is these days.

Taking money from a till is not the same as taking goods from a shop though.

The CPS says:
“If someone takes cash without the owner’s consent intending to repay it then the fact that they intend to repay it may go to the issue of dishonesty but will not negate the intention to permanently deprive, unless the defendant intends to return the very same notes or coins to their owner.”

Because they have not returned ALL of the very same notes or coins, then the original crime is committed, but even if they did, they would probably still be charged with attempted theft as it’s pretty obvious that you are not allowed to help yourself to a shop’s till.

 

[Blue Mist]

Taking money from a till is not the same as taking goods from a shop though.

The CPS says:
“If someone takes cash without the owner’s consent intending to repay it then the fact that they intend to repay it may go to the issue of dishonesty but will not negate the intention to permanently deprive, unless the defendant intends to return the very same notes or coins to their owner.”

Because they have not returned ALL of the very same notes or coins, then the original crime is committed, but even if they did, they would probably still be charged with attempted theft as it’s pretty obvious that you are not allowed to help yourself to a shop’s till.

CPfuckinStarmerS are tits. How do you prove someone's intention ? The first thing the dibble do is tell the person he doesn't have to say anything.
'I have just apprehended you not 5 yards from that till where you took £100, why did you take it' reply 'no comment'.
How does that prove he intended to steal the money ? The CPS talk shite, are useless at their job and make shite Prime Ministers in waiting. The law is what counts, you have to prove they 'dishonesty intended to permanently deprive'. Stuffing a bottle of scotch or a £100 down your trolleys and walking around a shop does not prove this. Walking out the shop does and in this made up instance, using £70 of the money to buy something and walking out with the rest does

 

[Bill Walker]

There are Only two ways at looking at this.

The right way (£100). And the wrong way (everything else).

No that's wrong mate.

"How much (£££) has the store lost" (asks the OP)

They have lost £30 plus the stock which didn't cost them £70, they bought it at wholesale price so maybe 40 or £50 ish

Until you know what the shop paid for the stock you can't say exactly what they lost.

It was only worth £70 once they'd sold it (which they hadn't)

 

[Coatigan]

No that's wrong mate.

"How much (£££) has the store lost" (asks the OP)

They have lost £30 plus the stock which didn't cost them £70, they bought it at wholesale price so maybe 40 or £50 ish

Until you know what the shop paid for the stock you can't say exactly what they lost.

It was only worth £70 once they'd sold it (which they hadn't)

He didn't 'take' any stock though. He bought it. It was then 'worth' £70. Because the shop did 'sell' it.

It is immaterial though, he could have bought £700 worth of stuff, after stealing £100 from the till, the shop would still be £100 down. Or he could have walked out without buying anything, anyone else could have bought 7£, £70 or 7000£ worth of stuff, the shop would still be £100 down. As soon as that £100 leaves the till, the shop is £100 down regardless of what happens thereafter.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

CPfuckinStarmerS are tits. How do you prove someone's intention ? The first thing the dibble do is tell the person he doesn't have to say anything.
'I have just apprehended you not 5 yards from that till where you took £100, why did you take it' reply 'no comment'.
How does that prove he intended to steal the money ? The CPS talk shite, are useless at their job and make shite Prime Ministers in waiting. The law is what counts, you have to prove they 'dishonesty intended to permanently deprive'. Stuffing a bottle of scotch or a £100 down your trolleys and walking around a shop does not prove this. Walking out the shop does and in this made up instance, using £70 of the money to buy something and walking out with the rest does

I don’t agree. In my opinion, opening a till (assumedly, as the details don’t state if it is open or closed) to “borrow” money is enough to imply intent to steal.

The money leaving the boundary of the till is the crime. The goods leaving the boundary of the store would have been a crime IF it was a shop-lifting offence, but it wasn’t, it was buying goods with stolen money, that crime occurring at the till.

In any case, the person has proven their intent by using the money.

 

[Blue Mist]

I don’t agree. In my opinion, opening a till (assumedly, as the details don’t state if it is open or closed) to “borrow” money is enough to imply intent to steal.

The money leaving the boundary of the till is the crime. The goods leaving the boundary of the store would have been a crime IF it was a shop-lifting offence, but it wasn’t, it was buying goods with stolen money, that crime occurring at the till.

In any case, the person has proven their intent by using the money.

I totally agree with your last paragraph.
It's the rest I don't. If he took the money out of the till walked 20 yards and was nicked he could simply say he wanted to show how weak the store security was. He had no intention of keeping the money. In fact in law, he doesn't have to say anything at all. It is upto the police and the CPS to prove beyond all reasonable doubt he intended to keep the money so, if he is nicked whilst still near the till, you cannot prove theft.

(In my opinion)

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

I totally agree with your last paragraph.
It's the rest I don't. If he took the money out of the till walked 20 yards and was nicked he could simply say he wanted to show how weak the store security was. He had no intention of keeping the money. In fact in law, he doesn't have to say anything at all. It is upto the police and the CPS to prove beyond all reasonable doubt he intended to keep the money so, if he is nicked whilst still near the till, you cannot prove theft.

(In my opinion)

I think I need you to demonstrate this for me at your local supermarket.