Quote:
Interference with a Motor Vehicle, contrary to Section 9 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981
(Wilkinsons 15.54 to 15.60)
The offence is committed when a person interferes with a motor vehicle or a trailer, or with anything carried in it, or on it with the intention that an offence specified in sub-section (ii) shall be committed by that person or some other person. The offences under sub-section (ii) are:
theft of the motor vehicle or trailer or part of it;
theft of anything carried in or on the motor vehicle or trailer;
an offence under section 12(1) of the 1968 Act, refer to Taking a Conveyance without Authority, contrary to section 12 of the 1968 Act, above in this chapter.
If it can be shown that the accused intended to commit one of those offences, it is immaterial that it cannot be shown which it was.
Motor vehicle interference is a summary only offence, which carries a penalty on conviction of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months and/or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
The elements of the offence are:
Interference
The act does not define what constitutes interference. The mere placing of a hand on a door may not be an act of interference. Putting pressure on a vehicle's door handle is an act of interference.
With a motor vehicle or trailer or anything in it or on it
With an intention to commit one of the three offences specified in sub-section (ii).
Examples when a charge of vehicle interference would be appropriate:
When the act of the accused fall short of what is required for attempted theft of the vehicle/trailer or content, for example, because they are acts merely preparatory to theft;
When the accused attempts to take a motor vehicle without the owner's consent but does not succeed;
When the accused's fingerprint or DNA is found on the interior of a vehicle that he did not have authority to enter or use.
Top of page
Charging considerations:
This offence should be charged when there is insufficient evidence to prove the full offence contrary to section 12 of the 1968 Act.
When from the available evidence the accused's intention is not clear, you should consider charging motor vehicle interference.
The offence of 'Vehicle Interference' requires evidence of an 'Intent' to committ a specific act or acts.
Placing a note, or anything on someone else's property constitutes a 'Trespass', including the people who put 'flyers' under windscreen wipers. However, for an action to succeed (and damages to be awarded) a Court would need to be satisfied that a 'wrong' had been committed. In the case of a 'flyer' it would probably take the attitude that this is a recognised form of advertising in our current society.
As regards 'clampers' they adher a notice in the view of the driver as they have a 'duty of care' to take steps to minimise of the possibility of the vehicle being moved and damage resulting.
However, if someone Superglued a notice (ignoring the fact that it is water soluble and might becomne detached in rain), or 'mechanically bonded' a notice to a windscreen to such an extent that it made the vehicle unusable without employing significant effort to remove it, then that
could constitute Criminal Damage.
As for PCSO's, they give them a uniform. Stick them in a classroom for a week or so, and then they come out thinking they know it all.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
