How come the filth ended up at this poor woman's house, or is it a total co-incidence that she works for a rival supermarket? Tesco really are scum. They'd have been happy to see all this food go to waste simply because there was no profit in it. More power to the freegans.

Hmm, I'd be surprised if they can make this charge stick. See Theft Act definition of theft below. The food had been thrown away as far as I can see. The person taking it probably believed that she had the right to take it as Tesco's had abandoned it. She also probably thought that Tesco's wouldn't mind her making use of something that would otherwise go to waste - if they'd wanted it themselves, why would they have put it in rubbish bags out on the street? The prosecution would have to prove dishonesty and if she honestly believed she was doing Tesco's a favour by removing their waste from the street and putting it to good use, that will be difficult to prove. Putting your waste in a binbag out on the street looks like throwing it away to me, so how are they going to argue that it was their property, and that the woman had the intention of permanently depriving them of it? Like the council which tried to frame me for taking some chairs it had in a skip headed for landfill, they'll find it hard to develop an argument about how they've been deprived of the use of their abandoned property.

Shame on the cops too. Handcuffs? Honestly! Haven't they abandoned their 'star chart' system yet, where they get the same number of bonus points for arresting an environmentally conscious skipper as an axe murderer?

Theft is a serious offence and I think you can opt for a Crown Court hearing, with jury and all.

Some links to other cases here:

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/8155568.stm
 http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/news/Craig-Whittle-cleared-theft-charge-finding-163-40k-bin-liner/article-2454428-detail/article.html
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166411/Student-finds-mobile-phone-celebrating-18th-ARRESTED-handing-police.html
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8129534.stm
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399242.html?c=on#c196002
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400395.html?c=on#c197013
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/402096.html?c=on#c198656


THEFT ACT 1968 - DEFINITION OF THEFT

1 Basic definition of theft

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).

2 “Dishonestly”

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

3 “Appropriates”

(1)Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

(2)Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.

4 “Property”

(1)“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

(2)A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions, except in the following cases, that it to say—

(a)when he is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by power of attorney, or as liquidator of a company, or otherwise, to sell or dispose of land belonging to another, and he appropriates the land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him; or

(b)when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed; or

(c)when, being in possession of the land under a tenancy, he appropriates the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land.

For purposes of this subsection “land” does not include incorporeal hereditaments; “tenancy” means a tenancy for years or any less period and includes an agreement for such a tenancy, but a person who after the end of a tenancy remains in possession as statutory tenant or otherwise is to be treated as having possession under the tenancy, and “let” shall be construed accordingly.

(3)A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.

For purposes of this subsection “mushroom” includes any fungus, and “plant” includes any shrub or tree.

(4)Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of reducing it into possession.

5 “Belonging to another”

(1)Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).

(2)Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and an intention to defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person having that right.

(3)Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other.

(4)Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds.

(5)Property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.

6 “With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.

If food, or anything else, is put out for refuse collection, it belongs to whichever company, or the local authority, which organises the refuse collection. They are deemed to be the owner of the stuff that the supemarket has, in effect, passed on to them by leaving it for them to collect.
Since they are going to dump it anyway, few firms or local authorities can be bothered to prosecute somebody who takes it away for them. It is mainly the police who have a problem with people collecting unused or wasted items, and that I suspect is not because they're really concerned that it's a 'crime' but because their tiny minds can't handle the idea of people living unconventionally. Or else it's because they assume that people who are poor enough to do skipping are also bound to be powerless enough that they can get away with fitting them up.

I've (& heard of others) experience that says the opposite - police who've been talked out of doing anything, or haven't been that bothered when explained, and supermarkets who have a real problem with people taking stuff they're chucking out. Their line of argument goes that if you weren't taking it from there, you'd be buying it from them, so you're losing them money.