Rant Amazon Delivery muck ups, honest people and moral quandaries.

Amazon Logistics are a little hit and miss in my experience. Mostly they turn up but sometimes it isn't at the right address (usually 400 yards up the road) but they normally state "left with neighbor" which they are - there are just a couple of fields between us and them. The fact that there's also a neighbor 10 yards the other side is a different matter...

My biggest gripe with them is having a delivery report of "Handed to and signed for by recipient" actually being "Stuck behind bin at house 400 yards away, delivery card left inside package". Only a couple of hundred quids worth, nothing to them but my disposable income for a month. However, I reported the issue, they resolved it. I got my kit, they still had my money. Win/win. That's my normal approach.

FYI: I work in retail, specifically delivery related. I used to handle complaints rather than systems so tend to be a little more lenient than most regarding delivery screw ups as I was the one being shouted at for 6 years. YMMV.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what do you base that on? Reason I ask is because I'm familiar with the Theft Act but not any amendments or case law surrounding it.

According to the Theft Act 1968:

So, at the point you take delivery of the duplicated order, you're acting innocently (assuming you don't know what's inside the box and/or who sent it to you), but once you realise it's a duplicate order you know that you have no rights of ownership over that property. So to then keep the item i.e. assume right of ownership i.e. appropriate it, you are acting dishonestly unless you make reasonable efforts to return the property to the rightful owner. So we have a dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the owner i.e. theft. That's my reading of it. But I'm happy to be informed of where the gaps in my understanding lie.

 

I wish I could give you a decent point of reference. I base it upon many years of Policing, dealing with Home Office counting rules, CPS and the Court's. In my earlier years I tried to prosecute a handful of these type of cases and got nowhere, most didn't even get recorded as a crime. Nothing has changed in that time, they still get treated as 'civil disputes'.

The five points of Theft all have to be complete, as I'm sure you understand. It is clear in this case that the 'appropriation' you quote is complete. However the 'dishonest' isn't:

The OP was obviously entitled to take possession of the item as he had paid for it and it was addressed to him. I'm pretty sure there is some case law on it. I'm back at work in a while so will dig around on PNLD and see what it brings up.

 

OP's entitled to take delivery of it, yes, but if OP decides to keep the item, having realised the mistake that OP has now acquired 2 for the price of one but chooses not to do anything to try and correct the matter, a dishonest act occurs. So I'm not saying OP has committed theft already, just that I think it would be if OP keeps it and doesn't tell (or reasonably attempt to) the rightful owner.

But I look forward to seeing what you can dig up on the matter.

 

Moynes v Cooper 1956 covers the requirement for there to be dishonesty at the time of appropriation. Quite simply the OP hadn't been dishonest at the point in which he took it into his possession.

The morale question could be posed that he took it into his possession when he had already received a refund, however OP only has to believe that Amazon would expect him to take possession of the item, after all they wouldn't expect him to give it back to the random neighbour, and still no theft is committed.

I'll cover the five points that must be proven for the offence to be committed:


Dishonestly - I think we've covered that well enough. He does not take the item into possession through dishonest means.

Appropriation - Again, covered. Appropriation is only complete if the dishonest element is to.

Property - Simple enough and complete. The item is property.

Belonging to another - It belonged to Amazon, then it belonged to the delivery company, then the moment it was delivered to the address it lawfully belonged to the OP.

Intention to permanently deprive - Questionably complete, if at the time the OP thought, 'result, I'll keep this and the refund'

All five of these must be proven. At least two are not. No theft.

 

It seems bizarre to me that there has to be dishonesty at the time of appropriation for it to be theft.

If at the airport I make an honest/reasonable mistake and take a bag with a missing/unclear tag that looks like mine and walk out with it. Then I realise my mistake but still keep it. Is that not theft then?

 

Taking possession of the item, from the delivery man, is not dishonest appropriation, but subsequently keeping it knowing you've no right to is dishonest appropriation.

There's two appropriations taking place - one at the doorstep, and then another whenever the recipient says "**** 'em, I'm keeping it".

You rightly cite that the defendant in Moynes V Cooper was acquitted, but that happened 12 years before the Theft Act was enacted, so it's pretty irrelevant. This site says that Section 5(4) of the Theft Act was brought in to close the loophole exploited in Moynes V Cooper.

 

But this doesn't cover the situation in question? No one has made a mistake in sending it to the OP and the OP hasn't mistakenly come into possession of it.

The fact that dishonesty and appropriation go hand in hand is still used in Court to this day, so it's not irrelevant. I've dealt with hundreds and hundreds of thefts, and that is how it is. And you can't simply appropriate something twice, having never lost possession of it in between. It doesn't work like that.

Unfortunately with the way a lot of legislation is written it is open to so much interpretation. How it is interpreted and how it is applied in real life lacks consistency, but that is just how it is. I don't agree with it, but I'm telling you now that if a CPS lawyer had this 'scenario' chucked on his desk one morning, he'd dribble his Tesco gold coffee down his Matalan suit and toss it towards the shredder. If he didn't the Magistrates/Judge would tear his arse to bits for letting it get near their Court room.

I believe that section 5 (4) that Porkin's has quoted will cover this scenario.