[nzlug] Re: NZLUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 7

[Nevyn]

On Jan 8, 2008 10:26 PM, John Rye <jrt746 at clear.net.nz> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:59:52 +1300
> Simon Bridge <simonbridge at ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 19:52 +1300, Damian Turner-Steele wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Simon Bridge <simonbridge at ihug.co.nz>
> >
> > > To be successfully prosecuted for theft it has to shown that you intended to
> > > permanently deprive the rightful owner of whatever it is that you stole.
> > >
> > > "So if I take your car and return it before you know it's gone or need to
> > > use it, that isn't theft? If I fill the tank, and it was only half-full
> > > when I took it, did I do you a favour?"
> > >
> > > No you committed the offence of taking without consent which is a lesser
> > > crime. If you returned it with extra fuel you might get a reduced sentence
> > > (do I need irony tags here).
> > >
> > Now that, I did not know. Reinforces my thinking though... sometimes it
> > is good to play Devil's advocate.
> >
> > OT: There's a crime called "conversion" isn't there?
>
> I believe that's a generic term for the charge were the car/vehicle is
> taken for a generic joyride.
>
> As I recall the charge goes something like: "did without colour of
> right convert a <define vehicle> to his own use." However, I'm not sure
> that the charge in this form is still used.
>
> John

I know the terming "colour of right" is used within various theft laws
(there are different laws for different situations such as being in a
trusted position and stealing).