A man who took a taxi to a job interview because he was running late then stole a bike to get home since he had no money left has been given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay copmpensation to the victim.
Nathan Wint, 27, took the unlocked bike worth £560 from the premises where his interview had been due to take place at Gordon Banks Way in Trentham Lakes, Stoke-on-Trent.
Despite taking a taxi to try and get to the interview on time, he arrived late and the interview did not go ahead, reports the Burton Mail.
Wint, from Silverdale in Stoke, was identified through CCTV images and told police that he had taken the bike to ride home, but abandoned it on the way due to a flat tyre.
At North Staffordshire Justice Centre, Colin Drew said in Wint’s defence: “It was an extremely foolish act by this young man.
“He had used £12 to pay for a taxi to get him to the job interview.
“The interview did not proceed. He was completely out of funds and as a result he took the bike.
“It was taken simply for the purpose of getting him home.”
Magistrates gave him a 12-month conditional discharge and told him to pay the bike’s owner £450.
He was also ordered to pay £135 in costs and a £20 victim surcharge.
Yesterday, we reported on another instance of bike theft where the lateness of the perpetrator was cited as a factor.
That involved a high school student from Hackettstown, New Jersey in the United States who stole a bike to get to school on time.
> US teen steals bike to get to school on time … cops give him a life lesson
The 16-year-old, who was not name, was charged with theft and tips by police on how he could avoid being late in future.
11 thoughts on “Man misses job interview after arriving late by cab … and steals bike to get home”
“Taken for the sole purpose
“Taken for the sole purpose of getting home” – so chuffing what? It was still bike theft, and the prospective employers must clearly think that they’ve dodged a bullet, given that he stole it from their premises.
brooksby wrote:
It was his defence. The Theft Act 1968 says:
“A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it“.
I once knew someone who was charged with stealing an empty beer barrel from outside a pub, but was acquitted because of the above clause.
. . wrote:
It was his defence. The Theft Act 1968 says:
“A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it“.
I once knew someone who was charged with stealing an empty beer barrel from outside a pub, but was acquitted because of the above clause.— brooksby
He stole it to get home, then abandoned it because it had a flat tyre. Seems pretty much like “permanently depriving the owner of it” to me…
brooksby wrote:
It appears that his defence failed, seeing as how he was convicted and fined. Theft is often a tricky one to prove as you need to show there was intent to permanantly deprive the owner of their property, stealing a car, taking it for a joyride and then dumping it at the side of the road doesn’t constitute theft because there was no intent to keep the car. This is why the offence of Taking Without Owner’s Consent (TWOC) exists.
In the case of a bike that’s Theft Act (1968) section 12, ss 5: “Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to pedal cycles; but, subject to subsection (6) below, a person who, without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, takes a pedal cycle for his own or another’s use, or rides a pedal cycle knowing it to have been taken without such authority, shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding [F8level 3 on the standard scale.]”
This has a lower burden of proof required as you don’t need to prove any intent, just that the person has taken the bike without the authority of the owner. However it does come with a smaller penalty than theft.
Was the bike returned, if not
Was the bike returned, if not why didn’t the scrote have to give at least the full value back?
Google him. Serial burglar
Google him. Serial burglar with cannabis problem.
I’m no mathematician but…
I’m no mathematician but…”Nathan Wint, 27, took the unlocked bike worth £560…Magistrates told him to pay the bike’s owner £450″ This doesn’t seem to quite add up.
Plainly he has no money so
Plainly he has no money so how is he going to pay £450 to the victim, £135 in costs and a £20 victim surcharge?.
schlepcycling wrote:
Probably at 50p a week until the local authorities get bored of chasing him for it.
Laughable that not having any
Laughable that not having any money for a taxi somehow mitigates the act of theft of a bicycle. Should simply have walked home.
I wonder whether he had any desire to get the job or not? See “when payment can be stopped” section of https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/further-information
Hope the bike was recovered…
http://www.stokesentinel.co
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/teen-took-cash-toddler-s-piggy-bank/story-12578253-detail/story.html
It does rather look like a “pattern of behaviour” … I think “previous” isn’t part of deciding guilt or innocence but I thought it was considered relevant to sentencing….