When is Possession of Railway Property no longer considered Theft ?

[Mutant Lemming]

There have been a number of threads where people have been requesting information on where to buy this or that rail related item but where is the line that distinguishes possession of such items as theft as opposed to owning memorabilia ?
Obviously any current uniform issue or rolling stock items can not be legitimately owned by general members of the public. If someone has a L&NWR button from 1917 it is unlikely to be classed as theft of railway property but what about a Network South East station sign or LU guard's position key or a Midland Mainline Trains uniform ?
At what point could a company rightfully prosecute for theft and at what point are they likely to ?

 

[headshot119]

I'm afraid I can't agree with your statement, I'm a member of the public, and I legitimately own a VT Rain coat kindly donated to be sold to raise money for charity!

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I'm afraid I can't agree with your statement, I'm a member of the public, and I legitimately own a VT Rain coat kindly donated to be sold to raise money for charity!

It seems odd that a Train Operating Company would sell or dispose of current uniform to members of the public. How can we differentiate between those who have bought such items from actual members of staff?

In the case of many operators old/returned/unused items surplus to requirements are securely destroyed in a similar way to police uniforms. In disposing of their current uniforms in such a way Virgin are exposing their customers to potential fraud and security risks from members of the public posing as their staff.

 

[NSEFAN]

Surely if the TOC has given permission for an item of theirs to be sold or donated then that is where the line is drawn? I recall being on a slam door EMU railtour where some cranks were liberating the furnishings from the compartments. Nobody stopped them but it was probably theft, unless permission was given from higher up the chain which I doubt!

 

[cjmillsnun]

Many, many items of railwayana were previously sold by collectors corner (which was BR and latterly the NRM). This includes old station signs, old uniforms and many other items.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Of course, let's not forget there is a school of thought which maintains that property is theft.

 

[the sniper]

In the case of many operators old/returned/unused items surplus to requirements are securely destroyed in a similar way to police uniforms.

I don't think Police uniform is uniformly disposed of in this fashion. I thought it was but one of the Drivers at our place has a black jacket with a blue and white chequer strip across it and epaulette hooks. It looked to me like an ex-West Mids Police one devoid of badges, so I asked the Driver whether he was ex-Police, but he wasn't, he just got it from a surplus store.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I don't think Police uniform is uniformly disposed of in this fashion. I thought it was but one of the Drivers at our place has a black jacket with a blue and white chequer strip across it and epaulette hooks. It looked to me like an ex-West Mids Police one devoid of badges, so I asked the Driver whether he was ex-Police, but he wasn't, he just got it from a surplus store.

Badged emergency service uniform is disposed of securely (or should be - it can sometimes be found on eBay!).

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Many, many items of railwayana were previously sold by collectors corner (which was BR and latterly the NRM). This includes old station signs, old uniforms and many other items.

The original point was when possession of items is no longer considered theft. Many BR totem signs were sold off only latterly by BR but many, many more were nicked. It is unlikely that those that were stolen will be chased up today but what about things that are not so old and especially current items?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The original point was when possession of items is no longer considered theft. Many BR totem signs were sold off only latterly by BR but many, many more were nicked. It is unlikely that those that were stolen will be chased up today but what about things that are not so old and especially current items?

Theft is the act of taking an item with intent to deprive the owner of it. Therefore anyone who acquires a stolen item from someone in good faith is not guilty of theft. They may, however, be guilty of handling stolen property.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Surely if the TOC has given permission for an item of theirs to be sold or donated then that is where the line is drawn?

I can't believe a current train operating company would be so foolish as to sell off any current staff uniforms or items of operating equipment to the general public. Even if they are sold with a proviso not to be worn or used in public or for 'good causes'. In future I think we should be asking Virgin on board staff for some ID before allowing them to check our tickets (unless Virgin are selling ID passes too).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Theft is the act of taking an item with intent to deprive the owner of it. Therefore anyone who acquires a stolen item from someone in good faith is not guilty of theft. They may, however, be guilty of handling stolen property.

Maybe... but am sure there are some of them still in the possession of the person who originally stole them. I can't see Network Rail taking someone to court who stole the totem from Bacup back in 1966 (- that's a made up example and not an admission of guilt by the way)

 

[EbbwJunction1]

Surely if the TOC has given permission for an item of theirs to be sold or donated then that is where the line is drawn? I recall being on a slam door EMU railtour where some cranks were liberating the furnishings from the compartments. Nobody stopped them but it was probably theft, unless permission was given from higher up the chain which I doubt!

Quite a number of years ago, probably in fact the late 1970s, there was an Open Day at Swindon Works.

In one of the workshops (possibly even where the Steam Museum is now!) a number of withdrawn diesel locomotives were "stabled". They weren't very far from away being scrapped anyway, but the public were given permission to remove anything that they wanted and could carry away.

This did, I admit, get very silly - I saw someone remove a door (possibly from a Hymek, I think) by undoing the hinges and just kicking it off the side! It fell to the ground with a tremendous crash, and I've often wondered how they got it home - if they did manage it at all, of course.

For some reason, I "souvenired" a couple of dials from something now unknown, which I still have but don't want any more - all offers will be gratefully accepted!

 

[broadgage]

I do not believe that a limit can be set at a certain number of years after which possession of potentially stolen railway property becomes legitimate.

In practice I doubt anyone would prosecute for something more than 50 years old unless exceptionly valuable.
In the case of low value items used in large numbers, the realistic time limit is probably about 20 years.

It would be almost impossible to prove theft rather than legitimate second hand purchase after a number of years.

As an example I have a possibly valuable old guard's hand lamp, I understand that my late Father purchased this from a government surplus store in the 1950s. He might have kept the receipt, or might not, a lot of shops did not routinely supply receipts for routine purchases in those days.
Can I prove legitimate ownership ? I rather doubt it ! Could anyone else prove it to be stolen ? also unlikely.

I also have a number of items purchased from collectors corner, I have been careful to keep the receipts but these are not exactly detailed ! most read "goods" or "old lamps" or "spare parts" or "work wear"

As yet another example I have several bardic hand lamps as widely used on the railway. Two where purchased brand new from a reputable wholesalers, another from a reputable advertiser in railway equipment. I have receipts for these three lamps, but none are very detailed and could probably be used to justify the possession of a similar lamp stolen from the railway.
Bardic lamps are routinely sold on fleabay, and I suspect that many of these are from serving or ex railway staff who "forgot" to return them.
But what about the fleabay vendor who has sold dozens of brand new "ex military" bardic lamps ? I very much doubt that these are stolen in view of the large numbers involved and the vast range of other military surplus goods offered.

The police and the courts have better things to do than pursue the owners of old and redundant former railway property. (unless very valuable or of great historic importance)

A much more serious view is taken regarding theft of current issue equipment especially if it could be used to impersonate railway staff for gain.

 

[Iskra]

Theft is the act of taking an item with intent to deprive the owner of it. Therefore anyone who acquires a stolen item from someone in good faith is not guilty of theft. They may, however, be guilty of handling stolen property.

In bringing up the Theft Act I think you've stumbled across the answer to the question here.

Something can only be Thieved if it is of use to the person it was acquired from.

Therefore, if it is still of use/value to the railway/a TOC it is not legitimate possession. If it is no longer of use/value, you can possess it legitimately.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Therefore, if it is still of use/value to the railway/a TOC it is not legitimate possession. If it is no longer of use/value, you can possess it legitimately.

Value may be the key word there - the fact that nowadays so many collectors have inflated the value of redundant items they may now hold a value to the original or inheritor owners.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Something can only be Thieved if it is of use to the person it was acquired from.

Therefore, if it is still of use/value to the railway/a TOC it is not legitimate possession. If it is no longer of use/value, you can possess it legitimately.

I don't believe this to be true.

 

[Iskra]

Value may be the key word there - the fact that nowadays so many collectors have inflated the value of redundant items they may now hold a value to the original or inheritor owners.

Generally, the following will happen:

- An objects' value depreciates to the point that the owner no longer cares after a certain amount of time.
- Object is abandoned, neglected, forgotten about, lost, written-off, formally discarded etc.
- Object is acquired, with little/no immediate value.
- As object ages, it starts to gain in value again.

So if an object has been through this cycle, as I suspect most railway items will have done, then the original owner has no (moral) claim.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't believe this to be true.

Why?

I am by no means a lawyer, but I did do A-level law, where we studied the Theft Act...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I own lots of things that are no longer of use to me, but it would still be theft if someone took them. You need to prove that properity belonging to another was dishonestly appropriated with the intention of permanently depriving them of it (or depriving them of the value of it, in the case of concert tickets for example). At no point are you trying to prove whether I still found the object useful or not (except if by the fact you took it, it is no longer of any use to me - e.g. concert tickets that you gave back after the concert). This doesn't even come into consideration of whether an object has been abandoned (when it would be permissible to take) which is a very complex area and does not specifically mean "not of use" or "not of value".

Happy to hear any contrasting arguments though.

 

[Iskra]

I own lots of things that are no longer of use to me, but it would still be theft if someone took them. You need to prove that properity belonging to another was dishonestly appropriated with the intention of permanently depriving them of it (or depriving them of the value of it, in the case of concert tickets for example). At no point are you trying to prove whether I still found the object useful or not (except if by the fact you took it, it is no longer of any use to me - e.g. concert tickets that you gave back after the concert). This doesn't even come into consideration of whether an object has been abandoned (when it would be permissible to take) which is a very complex area and does not specifically mean "not of use" or "not of value".

Happy to hear any contrasting arguments though.

There's a key phrase there.

I used 'value' for ease of argument/understanding.

I know it can be complex, but generally in terms of most railway artefacts it wouldn't be that complex.

If I was walking along a public footpath and stumbled across an artefact from one of the 'big four' railway companies and I took it home with me, would I have:

'Dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another?'

Equally, if I was rooting through my late-grandads' garage and found an ex-BR guards' whistle and kept it would I have:

'Dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another?'

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Those two examples aren't in keeping with your original post. I agree in the first example, you could argue abandoned property (although your second example could be far more complex than the Theft Act in its entirety!).

If it is no longer of use/value, you can possess it legitimately

This bit is not true. "Use" and "value" are subjective terms. I may see no "use" in a bag of old track chairs left adjacent to a level crossing, but taking them would be theft. Network Rail can have forgotten that the bag of old chairs exist, but it would still be theft (R v Woodman). Equally I may see no "value" in a used train ticket but these remain under the ownership of the railway.

Similarly, I've just put a load of old documents in my recycling bin. I have no need of them any longer, and they are of no value to be, but it would still be theft if you took them (Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates Court).

 

[broadgage]

If I was walking along a public footpath and stumbled across an artefact from one of the 'big four' railway companies and I took it home with me, would I have:

'Dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another?'

Equally, if I was rooting through my late-grandads' garage and found an ex-BR guards' whistle and kept it would I have:

'Dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another?'

In the first case, I think that in practice it would depend on how long the article had been there. If abandoned for decades then I believe that in PRACTICE that the item is yours to keep but IN THEORY it belongs to either the owner of the footpath, or to whoever succeeded the original owner. Neither is likely to know or care much about it after that time though.
If however the article had been recently lost, then retaining it would be theft, just like finding and keeping a wallet dropped in the street would be.

In the second case, presuming that you are now the lawful owner of your late grandfathers belongings in general, then I believe that the whistle is yours to keep. On inheriting goods it is not reasonable to expect the heirs to conduct detailed enquiries into the lawfulness of each item of the belongings of the deceased. Especially for small, low value, commonplace items such as whistles.

 

[Iskra]

Those two examples aren't in keeping with your original post. I agree in the first example, you could argue abandoned property (although your second example could be far more complex than the Theft Act in its entirety!).

This bit is not true. "Use" and "value" are subjective terms. I may see no "use" in a bag of old track chairs left adjacent to a level crossing, but taking them would be theft. Network Rail can have forgotten that the bag of old chairs exist, but it would still be theft (R v Woodman). Equally I may see no "value" in a used train ticket but these remain under the ownership of the railway.

Similarly, I've just put a load of old documents in my recycling bin. I have no need of them any longer, and they are of no value to be, but it would still be theft if you took them (Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates Court).

I used 'use' and 'value' to help the OP with his moral quandary in a simple fashion.

I'm aware they are subjective terms. There is no 'true' or 'false' it is about reasonable assumptions and behaviour- which is what our law is based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus Yes, I can cite wikipedia too

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Funnily enough I didn't use Wikipedia, I simply downloaded some PowerPoint presentations from my universities intranet (whilst I've still got access to an Athens account and whatnot I thought I may as well use it!). I think you will also find that the "man on the Clapham omnibus" has little bearing on criminal law nowadays (apart from the Ghosh test). In fact I can think of a few cases where the "man on the Clapham omnibus" may have a very different opinion to that which was held in the case. An honestly held belief that you were entitled to take property is a defence to theft, but understandably the courts do not want to widen that definition.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

There is, of course, an offence called "Theft by Finding".

Recently, on another forum unconnected to railways, a correspondent told the story of how he'd found a war memorial and wanted to give it to a museum.

The memorial had been next to some bins and was, he thought, being thrown out. He couldn't trace the owners, as the house which the bins were outside was now empty. He offered the memorial to the museum, but they wouldn't accept it until he could prove that it was his, as they didn't want to be accused of theft at some later date.

The forum's advice was that the finder should go to the police and tell them the circumstances in which he'd found the memorial and ask for their advice. He did this, and was told that they would give him a receipt for the memorial and if no-one claimed it in 28days, it was his. This was done, no-one claimed it, he passed it on to the museum, and everyone was happy.

Now, I suppose that the same thing could apply to things found and obviously dumped. Whether it would apply to things found on railway property I don't know.

 

[Busaholic]

Isn't it about time that someone brought up the Elgin Marbles? Oh, I think I just did!

 

[Turbo]

Whilst working in a house in Torbay, I was running some cable around the property and noticed in the garden two GWR benches. I asked the old lady how she acquired such items, she muttered something and went on inside.

Over a cup of tea, she elaborated that her husband who had passed, acquired them during a renovation of a station as he worked on the railway.

I'm not entirely sure what he used to do but it was set up in such a way that it was very much like a diorama of a platform. Very nice. Said he used to sit there for hours.