Can anyone educate the Police?

[nigeltm]

On the UKPoliceOnline forum a question has been posed regarding theft and foraging rights. They appear to have a problem with the answer.

Can any of you fine people help?

I assure you, I'll claim all the credit!

"A family are on a day trip to the NEW FOREST HAMPSHIRE.

Mary - Is Mum
Richard - Is Dad
Tommy - Son
Sam - Daughter

They are looking for a place to park in the local town but all the parking spaces are full, RICHARD decides to drive into a residential area and parks up on FOREST DRIVE (A public Highway). It takes the family approximately 20 minutes to walk down FOREST DRIVE. On the way to the forest SAM sees some daisy flowers growing on persons garden and goes to pick them up. She is stopped in her tracks when a dog starts barking so she changes her mind. Meanwhile MARY is picking dandelions from the side of the road and intends to use them to make wine for her Mother. TOMMY is looking for leaves and acorns on the grass surrounding the road and RICHARD has just uprooted a wild daffodil which he intends to plant in his garden at home. They enjoy a walk around the forest and on the way back, TOMMY decides to pick wild mushrooms which he intends to exchange half of them to his next door neighbor for some collectors stickers.


Can you identify any offence(s) committed during this event and explain your reasons."

http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=39075

Anyone out there have an answer for our boys in blue?

 

[Mesquite]

I reckon Richard is the offender as he has dug up the daffodil and removed it.

Sam would have been an offender if she had continued onto pick the daisy's as she's entered private property to remove the persons property (said daisy's).

 

[timboggle]

A couple of decades ago nobody would have batted an eye lid !!

Go on, tell me they've all been looked up for 48 hours, had their DNA put on file for the rest of their lives, cars been subject to a 'crushing' order and kids are now in care of the social services !!

 

[Tengu]

Id say the daffodil too.

Also pointless as bulbs are freely availible these days.

(And yes my family are persistent offenders in this. Nor will they listen to my protests on this.)

 

[tjwuk]

Its bound to be a highways offence. Were they caught walking too fast down the road on one of the many speed camera in Hampshire?

Or they were all done for picking wild produce without written consent and the right insurance and license from defra!

 

[Matt.S]

Richard has committed an offense of taking a wild flower's bulb without landowner's permission. I do believe but can't remember it may be theft, but it's been years now since I darkened a law textbook. Tommy picked the mushrooms for commercial gain and so therefore they became legal property, meaning he may have committed theft too.

Sam may have committed burglary in that she intended to enter private property with the intention to steal. However if the owner did not mind the daisies being taken then the act would not have been theft and so therefore there is no burglary having been committed. I cannot remember how intent rather than act affects this though, e.g. Shivpuri. Neither can I remember how 'premesis' vs. 'building' fits int this considering it's a garden. It may be aggrevated trespass... this is confusing...

Plain/regular trespass is a civil matter however aggrevated trespass is a criminal issue and so by performing damage on what is presumably private property (stealing/uprooting the daffodil) Richard may have comitted this offence too. Depends on who owns the grass verge I suppose.

How badly did I do?

 

[Shewie]

I reckon Richard is the offender as he has dug up the daffodil and removed it.

Sam would have been an offender if she had continued onto pick the daisy's as she's entered private property to remove the persons property (said daisy's).

I'll go with that.

My understanding is it's illegal to uproot or dig up any wild "plant" without the landowners permission, so RICHARD is gulity for one, SAM also if she'd been successful with the Daisys, she is guilty of tresspass too. TOMMY is also guilty for picking the shrooms as they are included in the "plants" section and permission should be sought.

Parking in an undesignated area could also be an offence especially if access is hindered. But as it's a public highway and there are no double yellow lines then I think RICHARD could get away with it.

 

[Toddy]

Okay, up here.............parking is fine, so long as access isn't restricted, junctions left clear, etc. Walking with due care on the road is fine.
Taking flowers from someone's garden isn't. That's curtiledge and removal of property from it.
Flowers, fruits, fungi for personal use is fine, and since the fungi are being swapped not for commercial gain that should be fine too.
Leaves and acorn collecting is okay ( we don't do mast grazing rights in forests here now) , bulbs........depends on the bulb iirc. Pignuts, celandines and the like are okay but if it's a true *wild* daffodil, i.e. the native plant, that's a no 'cos that one's on a list somewhere. Local bylaws apply there I think.

How did we do ?
You're going to tell us the whole family are criminals with records and Children's Panel referrals, aren't you ?

cheers,
Toddy

 

[scottisha5]

Being retired I couldnt give a hoot, sorry lol


Living it up now though

atb,

John

 

[FGYT]

Theft act says you cannot steal wild plants ie stuff not planted by some one or used as a crop etc

it is unlikely the daisys would be considerd theft (however they did not take them ) im assuming they are normal daisiys in the lawn not actual ornimental ones etc

the daffodil stated as wild cannot be stolen BUT under the countryside and wild life act 1981 you are not allowed to Uproot any plant with out specific land owner permmission

he could however have picked the flower with no law being broken (unless its on the protected list )
Unless CROW applies (Highways agency is a signatry tothe CROW act but havent been able to work out if the NO foraging blanket is applied to their land etc )

the mushrooms are allowed to be gathered on the Forest as allowed by the Forestry commission andth CAW 1981 (if they have allowed an exclusion under the CROW act if the area was applicable in which case every thing is illegal )
However the exchange of these for Goods can be seen to break the CAW 1981 as foraging is only allowed for personnel use

so yes there are offences under several acts

ATB

Duncan

 

[scrogger]

I dont think the police even get involved in trespass other than in a witness type capacity as its a civil offence. My thoughts would be on the fellow up rooting the Daffodil.

As Shewie says could be an offence to park in a residential area if a permit system is in place or some such.

Good questions though I will be interested to find out the answer .

 

[bushwacker bob]

Walking on the cracks in the pavement.

 

[lavrentyuk]

Tommy almost certainly commits theft. (Theft Act not some well hidden Wildflowers/Mushrooms Act I've never heard of). If it was for his personal use/consumption then he is probably okay. As soon as he sells it (or exchanges it for something of value to him) then it becomes a theft. I can think of a local example which involved a bloke dragging in moss from a reservoir and flogging it at a car boot sale for use in hanging baskets.

Taking cultivated plants would also represent theft.

Of course if they were magic mushrooms then we enter a whole new ball park !

Richard

 

[Ahjno]

Simple: mushroom - possession is illegal as they are classified as drugs

 

[tjwuk]

What about premeditated murder?

Tommy has no idea what shrooms he has picked (or does he?), he gives all the ones he is not sure about to his neighbour and ends up killing him, then obtains all his collectors stickers by default.

 

[FGYT]

WILD LIFE AND COUNTRY SIDE ACT 1981 in full

page 14 of this PDF is the bit on wild plants


Fergus has short hand of the laws on his site


regardless of teh WAC etc the foristary commission does give permission for mushroom collecting on their land with a limit by weight
tho has unsuccssesfully tryed to prosicute a woman who has been collecting and selling for years

ATB

Duncan

 

[nigeltm]

Guys,

Thanks for your input.

This isn't a trick question On the Police site they often discuss hypothetical situations or those raised in training/tests. In this case what you see is what you get. No criminal history or parking violations and certainly no "special" mushrooms!

As the officers who frequent UKPoliceOnline come from all regions and branches of the Police there are a number of differing opinions/answers. I thought I'd post the question here as if anyone should know the answer it would be one of your august selves.

If noone minds I'll post a link to this thread onthe Police forum.

Ta,

Nigel

PS: don't forget the distinction between pure and practical applications of the law! In theory someone may have committed an offence if they even intend to commit a crime (pure application of the law), but at that point it would be impossible to prove and therefore would not be arrested (practical application). This distinction can lead to disagreements when people don't appreciate the context of the discussion!

 

[Lordyosch]

The uprooting of wild plants is against the Countryside act so the daffodil would be an offence. The mushrooms may not be as they're not uprooted and could grow again (unless they're scheduled species). The collection of leaves and acorns might count as 'tidying up' so should be OK.

The daisy picker had 'intent' to steal.

Other things OK?

Jay

 

[demographic]

Every singe one of them is guilty, they were planning terrorist activities M'Lud.

 

[phaserrifle]

What about premeditated murder?

Tommy has no idea what shrooms he has picked (or does he?), he gives all the ones he is not sure about to his neighbour and ends up killing him, then obtains all his collectors stickers by default.

I would be supprised if that was murder. more likely manslaughter by gross negligance (failure to check the mushrooms saftey)
if you could prove he knew or strongly suspected that they where poisonous, then murder could be a possibility, but you'd have an absoulte hell of a time proving that in the given scenario.