NFR: Abstracting electricity is an offence.

[Logicalman]

I guess reading the whole article provides a little more to the story. Apparently this might be the case ...

"Electricity sockets on Overground trains are clearly marked with the words: "cleaners use only and not for public use"."

In that case, what would you do if someone started running their electric items from the outlet in your back yard you have for gardening? The guy was a prat, plain and simple. None of us know exactly what was said on the train, thus the dropping of the dishonesty offence and summoning for the disorderly offence.

[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.

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]...

Aha, yep, I took the meaning to 'be a fine'   :dft001:

[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]...

Aha, yep, I took the meaning to 'be a fine'   :dft001:

Poor choice of words on my part  082.gif