[Drivingforfun]

If I understand correctly, theft is "unauthorised removal of property with the intention of permanently depriving"

Crucially, if you give it back (or intend to) it's not theft

A friend recently had a parcel stolen, opened and then put back when the "thief"(?) wasn't interested in the contents and they were informed that, despite video evidence from a doorbell camera, prosecution was not an option because theft had not been committed

Is this true??

If someone helps themselves to my tools and puts them back, if that's not theft, is there any other crime?

Surely they have taken something - hours of use that I have been deprived of, caused wear and tear on the tools, deterioration of consumable parts?

Is there any expectation of "reasonableness" applied? If I help myself to someone's property and genuinely intend to return it in 40 years, I can't imagine that being seen as acceptable?

[Mark07]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

A friend recently had a parcel stolen, opened and then put back when the "thief"(?) wasn't interested in the contents

Inserting appropriate caveats... IMO, at the point of taking a sealed parcel, it is reasonable to assume that their mens rea was to permanently deprive.

However, if it were raining and taken by a neighbour, perhaps they could argue they were protecting the parcel.

I'm interested to hear what everyone else thinks.

[Beelzebub]

The problem is that if the defendant (AKA guilty b*stard) claims there was no mens rea, then it is up to a court to determine.
The police and CPS probably conclude that it just isn't worth committing the (taxpayer-funded) resources needed to pursue it, for a low value item. I would reluctantly agree.

[Jamie64]

Felonious taking - not ‘unauthorised’ taking

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by Jamie64

Felonious taking - not ‘unauthorised’ taking

There have been no felonies in English law since 1967, so "feloniously" is meaningless.

[Rolebama]

There is a clause in the Theft Act which covers being deprived of the use of your property. Possibly also covered by Human Rights Act. Most of our laws are open to some degree of interpretation. I once prosecuted a person under the Environmental Health Act for constantly slamming a car door and revving engines by using the use of machinery clause.

[NMNeil]

If the package was on the porch perhaps burglary?
"A person is guilty of burglary if—

(a)he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or

(b)having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm."

But there's lots of alternatives and cited court cases published by the CPS
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...t-act-offences