Man Jailed for accidentally leaving Assault teddy bear in Bathroom UK

[Master Blaster]

Jail for man who left bag in airport
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 06/05/2004)


A plumber who left an unattended bag containing a teddy bear, some fruit and clothes in an airport lounge was jailed yesterday for causing a full-scale security alert.



Magistrates sentenced Jose da Silva, 25, to 10 days under public nuisance laws.

Da Silva was waiting for a flight home to Portugal last Sunday when he left the hold-all in a departure lounge while he went for a cigarette at Birmingham nternational airport.

The airport was closed for three hours and 1,000 passengers and staff had to leave as an Army bomb disposal team investigated. Three incoming flights were diverted and 15 planes grounded.

Speaking through an interpreter and in tears, da Silva, who pleaded not guilty to creating a public nuisance, told the court in Solihull that he had no intention of causing such a huge security operation.

But Howard Turner, the chairman of the bench, said while da Silva had not intended to cause the alert the offence was serious enough to warrant a prison sentence.

It is thought to be the first time a jail term has been passed for what was an unwitting, albeit costly, act.

A Birmingham airport spokesman said: "This was an example of the sort of thing that can happen and how it escalates very quickly.

"We take these things very seriously and this was a serious security issue. The sentence reflects that and we would reiterate the dangers of leaving luggage unattended."

They let crimminals go for assault but jail a man for leaving a teddy bear behind.

 

[dischord]

The Brits don't play around with unattened baggage at airports, and it's nothing new. It's connected to IRA bombings and has been going on for decades.

The jailling is overkill, but he either knew better or has been living in a cave since the early 1970s.

 

[Unlucky]

Or Portugal.

 

[jimpeel]

It is thought to be the first time a jail term has been passed for what was an unwitting, albeit costly, act.

So the precedent has been set. There are no accidents. He needed no motive. He needed no intent.

For those approving of such actions, be ready for this type of action to affect you at some time in your life. If the authorities panic, YOU are responsible for that panic. Be ready for "public nuisance laws" -- whatever that means; and you can damn well believe that it means whatever they want it to mean -- to come down on you.

America is becoming the same way.

American jurisprudence was founded on three things to prove guilt; method (or means), motive (or intent), and opportunity. As an example:

If a person were carrying a concealed weapon, in contravention to the law, and they got caught; the prosecutor would seek to prove that they were guilty of the crime by means and opportunity alone. Surely, an armed man has the means to great destruction and he surely has the opportunity at every meeting of a fellow human being. The thing that they would lack would be a motive. But these days, there is no need to prove motive.

More and more this has crept into the justice system wherein the accused need only have means and opportunity and they are found guilty. DO NOT ever bring a case before me, as a juror, that lacks the three tenets of the judicial finding of guilt as I will not convict. I have a brain that is quite developed and I know the difference between right and wrong. I also know that there are things that must be proven prior to simply saying "Hang the defendant!"

The difference in the case at issue is that this man had NONE of the three tenets. Since he had no means to cause harm he also lacked the opportunity; and thus the motive for same.

This case comes down to the authorities sending him to jail because they were annoyed that he had annoyed them and he had embarassed them.

In addition to that, he was, after all, an e-e-e-ee-vil smoker. A purveyor of poison. A polluter of prodigious proportions.

 

[El Tejon]

So, he intentionally left the assault bear in the wc? He didn't intend the consequence of leaving the assault bear in the wc where children could be mauled?

Unclear whether mens rea has been abolished under UK criminal law. Would like to see the statute though.

jim, motive does not equal intent (thank goodness).

 

[jimpeel]

El Tejon

jim, motive does not equal intent (thank goodness).

Pursuant to http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=motive

Entry: motive
Function: noun
Definition: reason
Synonyms: aim, antecedent, basis, cause, consideration, design, determinant, drive, emotion, end, feeling, grounds, idea, impulse, incentive, incitement, inducement, influence, inspiration, intent, intention, mainspring, motivation, object, occasion, passion, purpose, rationale, root, spring, spur, stimulus, thinking
Concept: reason/excuse
Source: Roget's New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Thus we have laws which things such as : "Assault with intent to cause (or sometimes "produce") grievous bodily harm".

 

[El Tejon]

Maybe we are speaking different languages. You are speaking English and I am speaking law. "In common usage intent and 'motive' are not infrequently regarded as one and the same thing. In law there is a distinction between them. 'Motive' is said to be the moving course, the impulse, the desire that induces criminal action on the part of the accused; it is distinguished from 'intent' which is the purpose or design with which the act is done, the purpose to make the means adopted effective." BLACK'S, 6th ed. (1991).

"Assault with intent" is an example of a "specific intent crime", the subjective desire or knowledge that a proscribed result will transpire.

Motive=the why. Of course, juries always want to know why.

 

[jimpeel]

El Tejon

Ah, so. Motive drives intent but not vice versa.

Thanks for that.

J

 

[Greg L]

My brother in law had his knapsack blown up when he forgot it at a London train station while visiting .

Of course he had his name printed in big letters on the back of it - Liam (with a fine Irish surname to go along with it) . The powers that be weren't really happy with him when he called to see if anyone had found it & turned it in .

 

[El Tejon]

jim, motive CAN drive intent. It depends (doesn't it always).

 

[Quartus]

On the other hand.....

Maybe we are speaking different languages. You are speaking English and I am speaking law.

Valid distinction. Sad that it is so, but it is so, nonetheless.

 

[BerettaNut92]

Note to self: stay away from the UK.

If one gets jailtime for a teddybear, the Skunk leaves much more dangerous and deadly things in the restroom...I'll probably get the death penalty!!!

 

[TimRB]

If one violates a statute, intent is presumed. This does not mean, however, that a defendant cannot offer evidence that he did not have intent; it just means that the prosecutor does not need to show intent.

Oddly, in this case the judge seems to be convinced that there was no intent, but allowed the conviction anyway.

Tim

 

[one45auto]

All I can say is thank the Lord (and my parents) that I wasn't born in the UK. Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you.....

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Since he had no means to cause harm he also lacked the opportunity; and thus the motive for same.

and yet

The airport was closed for three hours and 1,000 passengers and staff had to leave as an Army bomb disposal team investigated. Three incoming flights were diverted and 15 planes grounded.

I'd guess the costs ran well over $100,000. Quite a bit of harm for someone without means or motive.

 

[El Tejon]

Um, Tim, criminal intent MUST be shown in order to prove a violation of the statute. It is not a speeding ticket, the prosecution must prove the act coupled with the necessary intent!!!

The article is confusing as it is unknown whether the offence involves his intent to abandon his assault bear or it is some sort of speeding ticket with criminal penalties.

 

[Unlucky]

How could this happen, with all the video surveillance in the UK? Obviously, they need to watch everyone in the bathroom now as they do their business with hidden cameras.

 

[agricola]

thanks to a combined effort of the likes of al-Q and especially the IRA, we are quite paranoid with regards to people who leave luggage unattended.

as anyone who has been through heathrow will know, at airports, train stations and the Underground there are announcements over the tannoy, and signs in a multitude of languages that people should not leave their luggage unattended.

i would also point out that during the two and a half hours that this went on, da Silva did not come forward and tell those involved in the evacuation of what he had done, or where he had left his bag. hence the prison sentence.

finally, all this talk of "intent" and "mens rea" is irrelevant - Da Silva was convicted of causing a public nuisance, which is an offence against common law, and which only requires that a person does an act which causes a public nuisance (which this case clearly did).

 

[Sleeping Dog]

What? Nothing happened in the bathroom. The guy left the bear in the waiting area while he stepped outside for a smoke.



"Where's he been, living in a cave?"
"No. Portugal"
Gotta love it. LOL



The only thing bad mentioned about a bathroom is Skunkabilly and his chemical warfare agents. 'Specially after Thai food!



Regards.

 

[Cosmoline]

Just leave a live cartridge in the middle of an airport stateside and see what happens! They shut down one airport because someone saw a .22 rimfire on the curb! The US Dept. of Der Fatherland Security is every bit as bad as anything the Brits have. When you enter an airport, you're entering hostile territory where you can be cavity searched without a warrant and even your words can land you in prison.

This is why I don't fly anymore!

 

[TimRB]

"Um, Tim, criminal intent MUST be shown in order to prove a violation of the statute."

Absolutely not. Not, that is, unless the statute specifically calls for intent, as in burglary, which, at common law, is entry with intent to commit [some specified crimes]. This is well-established. It is a direct fallout of another presumption: one is presumed to know the law.

If a statute exists that states "one may not do X", you are presumed to know that X is a prohibited act. Therefore, if you do X, you are presumed to have intended to do so. You are welcome to try to show that you did not intend to do X, but the prosecution does not have to show intent.

Tim

Edit: The above argument may be bogus, though it is, to the best of my recollection, correct. It is possible that I have confused crimes that are evil in and of themselves (mala in se) with crimes that exist solely by an act of the legislature (mala prohibita). In mala prohibita crimes the mental element (intent) is not necessary for the commission of the crime. That is why the judge threw the book at this guy even though he intended no harm. See Commonwealth v. Olshefski 64 D&C 343 (1948 Pennsylvania).

 

[JohnBT]

I was clearly warned not to leave a suitcase, bag or package unattended on the Tube or the train or the boat or anywhere in England, Ireland or Scotland.

That was in 1977. I seriously doubt that they've eased the rules any.

John

 

[Double Naught Spy]

thread title

Um, according to the account posted, the guy was NOT jailed for leaving a teddy bear in the restroom. Additionally, the bear had no attributes to indicate it was an assault bear.

In the story, note that it would not matter what was left in the restroom. He was as much guilty of leaving an 'assault' bear in the restroom as he was for leaving 'assault' fruit and clothing.

As clearly stated, the guy was arrested for causing the security alert. The fact that one of the contents in the bag was a teddy bear is not a salient aspect to the arrest.

 

[M1911Owner]

Dang. Didn't control his teddy bear.

 

[jimpeel]

agricola

finally, all this talk of "intent" and "mens rea" is irrelevant - Da Silva was convicted of causing a public nuisance, which is an offence against common law, and which only requires that a person does an act which causes a public nuisance (which this case clearly did).

A popcorn, beer, and egg fart in a crowded elevator could be considered a public nuisance that offends the sensibilities, as well as the olfactories, of the common civilized person; not to mention burning out all of their nose hairs.