Fowler v O'Brien (1994 SCCR 112)
Citation: Fowler v O'Brien (1994 SCCR 112)
Rule of thumb: Is taking another person’s property without permission, but returning it later, deemed to be theft? Yes, this is technically deemed to be theft even though the property was returned.
Judgment:
The basic facts of the case were that the accused had asked for a shot of the victim’s bike. The accused was told that he was not allowed. The accused was offended at this as it was a cool bike and other people were allowed a shot of it. The accused took the bike anyway and then cycled away and disappeared from view for a fairly significant period of time. This caused consternation to the bike owner. The accused was prosecuted with theft, although the defence argued that he always intended to return it. The Court held that the taking of property indefinitely meant that this constituted an act of theft. This decision was made in the times when bikes were relatively more expensive than they are today and was not produced as widely and as cheaply, which possibly had a bearing on the Judges’ decision, but the principle of the matter does still stand, "...owner deprived of his bicycle indefinitely..." Lord Hope
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.