On Dec 28, 2:28*pm, D1039 wrote:
On Dec 28, 2:18*pm, Denis McMahon wrote:





On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:11:34 -0800, furnessvale wrote:
Indeed! *Now all we need is government prepared to bring the law on
scrap metal out of the days of Dickens and into the 21st century and
courts prepared to believe the offence is worth more than the miniscule
scrap value the thief gets........but don't hold your breath.

Maybe it's about time BT and Network Rail started taking civil actions
against the thieves and the scrapyards for the consequential costs caused
by their actions.

A civil judgement for the compensation costs incurred by NR for a 6 hour
shutdown on the ECML would probably be enough to close the scrapyard that
paid for the signalling cable involved.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

Consequential losses are seldom recoverable in civil actions, as being
too remote.

Compensation costs are contractual penalties between NR and TOCs and
are irrecoverable in tort from a third party

Indeed it might not be possible to prove that the scrapyards 'knew or
ought to have known' the cable was stolen

I would have thought that Restitution Orders or Proceeds of Crime
orders against the proven perpetrators would be more likely to be
successful (in the later their assets are seized and they have to
demonstrate what proportion they can retain as coming from legitiate
means).

That assumes the proven perpetrators have any meaningful assets

Patrick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excuse me replying to my own post, but a good example of Proceeds of
Crime seizures is shown (in the below link) by Holyhead border
officials (and so tenuously on thread for uk.railway!)

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nort...5578-30026703/

Patrick

On Dec 29, 12:55*am, MB wrote:
On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:





On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan *wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& *endangering safety of rail passe ngers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& *penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. *Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. *When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

As another poster said, the real beef is with the guidlines and the
dickhead who makes them.

George

I would like to see more creative use of charging like happens in the
USA. *If there are a series of thefts then charge them with them all and
give them consecutive sentences. *Add trespassing on railway property,
endangering passengers and not having a dog licence each with
consecutive sentences. *In the UK they seem to chose one specimen charge
often not the most serious one then of course seven years means they
will only serve about three years. *The newspapers play along with the
legal system with headlines like "metal thieves get twenty years" which
when you read them actually mean perhaps five people got sentences of up
to five years so will serve two years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Defending solicitors may advise their clients to ask for offences to
be taken into consideration, reminding them that there are thresholds
at which higher sentences result. Often the offences to be taken into
consideration fall just short of the nest sentencing threshold - odd
that.



Re Consecutive and concurrent sentences:

"In the case of R v O'Brien and others [2006] EWCA Crim 1741,
(followed in R v O'Halloran [2006] EWCA 3148) the Court of Appeal
considered whether one sentence of imprisonment for public protection
could be ordered to run consecutively to another sentence of
imprisonment for public protection. The Court determined that while
not unlawful, it is undesirable to impose consecutive indeterminate
sentences or an indeterminate sentence consecutive to another period
of imprisonment".

More on http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...offenders/#a18

Patrick

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:08:18 -0800 (PST)
JJ wrote:
You write complete rubbish but if you think your views are
representative I think you should find a bigger audience and try
getting into elective politics.
But please do not pollute the atmosphere around here with your inane
opinions.

Oh dear, are only opinions you agree with tolerated here? What a good little
"liberal" you are. Award yourself a cub scouts right-on badge.

Don't like mine? Don't read them. Or better yet, shove your objections
up your arse and go **** yourself with them.

B2003

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:28:43 -0800 (PST)
SB wrote:
Yes - the great thing - which just about demonstrates the level of
intelligence of the pickey scrotes - is that some are electrocuted and
even killed when they try to steal live electrical cables. I mean
think of the overall intelligence of someone attacking an overhead
cable with a hack saw. The mind boggles. Electrocution and burns is
too good for them. SB

Its rather comforting to know that natural selection still operates.

B2003

On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ort_offences/]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I suspect that many millions would
disagree with you.

Bevan

On Dec 28, 8:01*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:


(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)



I think not.

From HMG: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/YoungPeo...me/DG_10027693

"The maximum sentences for intent to supply drugs are... up to life in
prison or an unlimited fine (or both) for a Class A drug"

From HMG: http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/p...ender/life.htm

"The maximum sentence that can be awarded by the Courts for a number
of other types of offences, for example rape, manslaughter and arson
is life imprisonment".

Wikipedia incidentally lists all common law offences, rape, inflicting
GBH with intent, wounding with intent, treason, aggravated burglary,
criminal damage with intent to endanger life.

But not, yet, cable theft

Patrick


Patrick

"D1039" wrote in message
...
On Dec 28, 8:01 pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which *only* a life sentence is
available.)

I think not.

From HMG:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/YoungPeo...me/DG_10027693

"The maximum sentences for intent to supply drugs are... up to life in
prison or an unlimited fine (or both) for a Class A drug"

See the word *only* in Charles's post. There are a range of offences for
which life imprisonment is available, but only murder for which a mandatory
life sentence must be imposed. It seems that a determinate sentence may even
be imposed for treason.

Peter

On Dec 28, 2:30*pm, D1039 wrote:

Remembering of course that the judiciary follow sentancing guidelines,
their deliberations on which are published and are subject to appeal
(inckuding in cases of leniency)

Indeed, every time a survey is done in which people are asked what
they think is a suitable sentence for a particular crime and what they
think is the typical sentence for a particular crime, _both_ estimates
turn out to be less than the average sentence. People massively
underestimate both the rate of imprisonment and the length of prison
sentences. See for example http://goo.gl/VU7I2

ian

On Dec 29, 4:35*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"D1039" wrote in message

...
On Dec 28, 8:01 pm, Charles Ellson wrote:



(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which *only* a life sentence is
available.)

I think not.

From HMG:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/YoungPeo.../TypesOfCrime/...

"The maximum sentences for intent to supply drugs are... up to life in
prison or an unlimited fine (or both) for a Class A drug"

See the word *only* in Charles's post. There are a range of offences for
which life imprisonment is available, but only murder for which a mandatory
life sentence must be imposed. It seems that a determinate sentence may even
be imposed for treason.

Peter

Correct - apologies to you both

Patrick

On Dec 28, 5:01*pm, furnessvale wrote:
When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

I don't have access to a complete set of sentencing outcomes. And
nor, I suspect, do you. The Daily Mail doesn't report all trials, you
know,

ian