NFR: Abstracting electricity is an offence.

[Andy S]

The guy arrested for charging his phone is accused of Abstracting electricity. It is apparently an offence under section 13 of the Theft Act 1968. It carries a maximum custodial sentence of five years. So how many of us have charged our phone up at work. It must cost all of 10p. 5 years for 10p no wonder the prisons are so overcrowded and what a lot of rubbish about blowing your phone or computer up

[alexbishop]

actual value of the charge to the phone was a fraction of 1p

[Craven Mad]

The charges against that guy were dropped pretty quickly for the simple reason that a person abstracting the electricity has to be acting "dishonestly" for it to be a crime. [assuming he was accused of breaching s13 Theft Act].

AKA - if you deliberately steal electricity, fully knowing it's wrong and you shouldn't be doing it, it can be an offence; but innocently charging your phone on a socket, in a space without signs prohibiting charging, will typically be fine.

I think the "abstracting electricity" offence was designed to stop people who go onto a property (like an abandoned one or something) and divert a lot of energy onto their property, without payment or permission. For that crime, it makes sense for a max 5 year prison term...

[fulhamben]

The charges against that guy were dropped pretty quickly for the simple reason that a person abstracting the electricity has to be acting "dishonestly" for it to be a crime. [assuming he was accused of breaching s13 Theft Act].

AKA - if you deliberately steal electricity, fully knowing it's wrong and you shouldn't be doing it, it can be an offence; but innocently charging your phone on a socket, in a space without signs prohibiting charging, will typically be fine.

I think the "abstracting electricity" offence was designed to stop people who go onto a property (like an abandoned one or something) and divert a lot of energy onto their property, without payment or permission. For that crime, it makes sense for a max 5 year prison term...

or by passing your meter at home

[Woolly Mammoth]

I had quite a Shock when I heard about this. 

[Craven Mad]

The charges against that guy were dropped pretty quickly for the simple reason that a person abstracting the electricity has to be acting "dishonestly" for it to be a crime. [assuming he was accused of breaching s13 Theft Act].

AKA - if you deliberately steal electricity, fully knowing it's wrong and you shouldn't be doing it, it can be an offence; but innocently charging your phone on a socket, in a space without signs prohibiting charging, will typically be fine.

I think the "abstracting electricity" offence was designed to stop people who go onto a property (like an abandoned one or something) and divert a lot of energy onto their property, without payment or permission. For that crime, it makes sense for a max 5 year prison term...

or by passing your meter at home

Yeah, exactly that.

I'm not an expert on criminal law, but I just looked and even that (bypassing your electric meter) seems to only get around 1 month in prison (R v Hodkinson), so the papers quoting "5 years for charging your phone" is such a ridiculous statement.

[Supermitch]

Watt is the world coming to

[snarks]

Been charged with disordely conduct instead I read somewhere

[Woolly Mammoth]

Been charged with disordely conduct instead I read somewhere

Has he been charged by electricity ,

[BestOfBrede]

The charges against that guy were dropped pretty quickly for the simple reason that a person abstracting the electricity has to be acting "dishonestly" for it to be a crime. [assuming he was accused of breaching s13 Theft Act].

AKA - if you deliberately steal electricity, fully knowing it's wrong and you shouldn't be doing it, it can be an offence; but innocently charging your phone on a socket, in a space without signs prohibiting charging, will typically be fine.

I think the "abstracting electricity" offence was designed to stop people who go onto a property (like an abandoned one or something) and divert a lot of energy onto their property, without payment or permission. For that crime, it makes sense for a max 5 year prison term...

or by passing your meter at home

I pass my meter every time I get home!  :005:

[Andy S]

I suppose running a lead out to wherever your seat was and plugging in an electric fire in the winter might be taking the p a little

[ToodlesMcToot]

Ohmitting the benign nature of the crime would surely have Amped up the public and caused a reVolt.

[gang]

Watt?

[The Equalizer]

So what do the electricity companies get for stealing from us utility bill payers? eOn currently owe me about £150 in overcharging, but they're not being locked up for fraud.

[The Enclosurite]

Been charged with disordely conduct instead I read somewhere

I think it was something like 'acting inappropriately in a train station' which I think probably translates to the fact that he most likely kicked off.

[SouthfieldWhite]

Like the 2 lads  who got arrested yesterday ,  as the first lad was caught drinking car battery fluid and the other  one was arrested for  eating a firework , they charged the first lad and let the second one off.

I will get my coat

[sunburywhite]

its reVolting

[Logicalman]

The charges against that guy were dropped pretty quickly for the simple reason that a person abstracting the electricity has to be acting "dishonestly" for it to be a crime. [assuming he was accused of breaching s13 Theft Act].

AKA - if you deliberately steal electricity, fully knowing it's wrong and you shouldn't be doing it, it can be an offence; but innocently charging your phone on a socket, in a space without signs prohibiting charging, will typically be fine.

I think the "abstracting electricity" offence was designed to stop people who go onto a property (like an abandoned one or something) and divert a lot of energy onto their property, without payment or permission. For that crime, it makes sense for a max 5 year prison term...

Not really, because only if there is an offence under the act, then penalties can be imposed for that offence, but if there is no offence committed, then no fine can be imposed either, as there is no finding of guilt.

[Logicalman]

its reVolting

Just revAMP it up a little.

[Craven Mad]

The charges against that guy were dropped pretty quickly for the simple reason that a person abstracting the electricity has to be acting "dishonestly" for it to be a crime. [assuming he was accused of breaching s13 Theft Act].

AKA - if you deliberately steal electricity, fully knowing it's wrong and you shouldn't be doing it, it can be an offence; but innocently charging your phone on a socket, in a space without signs prohibiting charging, will typically be fine.

I think the "abstracting electricity" offence was designed to stop people who go onto a property (like an abandoned one or something) and divert a lot of energy onto their property, without payment or permission. For that crime, it makes sense for a max 5 year prison term...

Not really, because only if there is an offence under the act, then penalties can be imposed for that offence, but if there is no offence committed, then no fine can be imposed either, as there is no finding of guilt.

Not too sure what you mean by that, but my reading is that we're saying the same thing: the guy didn't commit an offence of abstracting electricity (the offence being a combination of the act [stealing electricity] and the mindset [doing so dishonestly] - so here, he was released because, despite doing the act, he didn't commit the offence as he wasn't dishonest.

Unless you read the last word of my sentence you bolded as "he will get a fine" [aka a penalty charge] as opposed to what I meant: "he will be fine" [aka it's not a problem/he'll be ok]...