Freegans Commit Theft

3333 Words14 Pages
Abstract This course work will provide an overview of freeganism, followed by the key augments of Dr Thomas Sean article ‘Do Freegans Commit Theft’. It will analyse the element of theft according to the Theft Act, It will analyse the defence available to a Freegan charged with theft, it will also critically consider the fact that freegan are guilty of theft, because they take items belonging to another that is not abandoned, they deprive the owner of such items and that they are dishonest in their claim owing to the fact that they are not the rightful owner of the items. In conclusion this course work shall give overview of the key elements disused and also consider the impact of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Introduction Freeganism…show more content…
The club have warned him severally, erected a high fence because of him and have reported to the police. The police patrolled that area and caught him in the act. He was convicted of theft he appealed contending that the ball have been abandoned and that he has a good title over the ball since it was abandoned. His conviction was upheld because he has no right to go into the golf premises to pick golf ball since the owner has not permitted him. In the same vain a freegan going into people’s premises will be guilty of theft because he has acted without the permission of the owner of the skip or bin. Subsequently, Bentinck Ltd v Cromwell engineering co. determined whether a car had been abandoned. The car had been damaged in a crash and then left in a garage, the hirer of the car had disappeared, and it was held that the car had been abandoned. The fact that that hirer of the car had disappeared is a true basis that the car had been abandoned this is not so with the case of goods that are been freeganised, the owner of the goods had not disappeared leaving their…show more content…
In general there is distinct difference to what could be seen as honest and dishonest. An appropriation of property may be dishonest notwithstanding the intention to pay for it and it is also immaterial for an appropriation of property to be in view to make gain. In R v Rostron the defendant collected lost ball in the middle of the night from a golf course they were dressed in diving suits and in a possession of sack which had wet balls in it, they had collected the balls from a stretch of water. It was held that they knew they were not entitled to go onto the golf course to recover the balls; they were dishonest in their dealing. Section two of the Theft Act provides details where a person’s conduct cannot be considered dishonest. (1) Believes in law to have the right to deprive the other of it; (2) believes that the owner would consent if notified about the appropriation; and (3) where there is reasonable believe that the owner of such property cannot be traced by taken reasonable steps. Belief in law right If a freegan appropriate property belonging to another with the belief that he has legal right to deprive the other of it, his conduct cannot be accounted

More about Freegans Commit Theft

Open Document