Theft of a charity box

[deeepeee]

Hi, I am new to this group and wanted some opinions?

I work in a shop and a 'customer' pinched a charity box.

I say pinched... the thief unscrewed the box from the security fastener, lifted his jacket and put the box of money down his trousers before pulling the coat back over. He then turned to walk out. Before he did, he was stopped by a member of staff. at first the 'customer' denied doing anything, then when the staff member insist he put it back, he did only after giving a little verbal to the staff member.

This was reported to the police and the police officer said it was not theft but it was 'attempted theft' as he did not leave the store. We insisted it was theft and the officer agreed to write it up this way.

I understand that the law can be technical but I have scoured the CPS and other site to see when theft is theft and the best I can see is that it is theft when it is clear that the thief has taken it with intent. As the charity box is not a 'for sale' item, then there could be no claim that it was being 'tried' before purchase, there would be no reasonable argument for putting it down your trouser even before actually leaving the store.

The question would be what would be the case should it be one of the charity boxes secured out side the shop? It would be outside before before AND after the taking so the 'leaving the shop' statement is invalid in determining any theft from a shop.

I fail to see how this could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt and certainly should pass the evidential stage?

Any thoughts?

Thanks

[james_law]

From an academic perspective. Theft is defined in legislation and is the following
''A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.''

It matters not if the item made its way outside the shop, all the elements of theft would be fulfilled. The only potential part is the intention of permanently depriving, but from what you have said I cant see that being a problem in being proved.

By attempt they are saying that he has not fulfilled the full offence because he has not got the 'item'. But the legislation says nothing about actually having to get away with the item etc.

Just to be sure I'd wait for a more practical view from potentially someone who works in the criminal area.