The following is reproduced from Ananova:

'Metric martyr' theft conviction overturned

A "metric martyr" who stole 29 metric road signs and daubed others with black paint has won his appeal after a judge overturned his conviction for theft.

UK Independence Party member Tony Bennett was labelled an "imperial vigilante" by the district judge who sentenced him to 50 hours community service in May this year.

But a judge at Maidstone Crown Court overturned the 55-year-old's conviction for theft, saying there was no evidence of dishonesty or that he intended to permanently deprive the owners of their signs.

Mr Bennett from Harlow, Essex, denied theft and criminal damage and said that the signs, near Tenterden, Kent, were "illegal".

The father-of-two, a market researcher, argued that by law all road signs must be in miles and yards, not metres and kilometres.

He drove to Tenterden on July 1 last year after a tip-off about "illegal" road signs and buried them in four locations underneath bushes before retrieving them in October last year and handing them to their owners.

Maidstone Crown Court judge Keith Simpson overturned Mr Bennett's conviction for theft and upheld his conviction for criminal damage but reduced his sentence - 50 hours of community service to run concurrently with the 50-hour sentence for theft - to an absolute discharge.

After the hearing, Mr Bennett said: "I did not expect this but I'm very, very pleased. But the most important thing is that my action has been vindicated.

"Now we have the authority to move more signs from roads if they are illegal. We're not going to accept them.

The court heard that the metre signs were a breach of Government regulations but not the law as Mr Bennett claimed.

Story filed: 18:17 Thursday 31st October 2002

Big thumbs up then!

Congratulations, although it's still criminal damage.

Hallelujah! (or as SteveH says, Big Thumbs Up!)

Ross says "criminal damage" in his note of congratulation. I'd rather accuse the authorities
who put up metric signs of damaging something
(not quite sure what gets damaged when you
grind down language to sameness--the spirit?)
and I rejoice to see the damage reversed.

One of the leading cases on criminal damage, referred to in the criminal law Bible 'Archbold', held that for a charge of criminal damage to be upheld, the thing alleged to have been damaged 'must have lost value or usefuleness'.

It was persuasively argued by my barristers on both occasions I was in Court that simply painting over the illegal metric distances on the signs neither reduced their value nor their usefulness. After all, once the illegality of the sign had been pointed out, Transco - or whoever - would be obliged in any event to cover over the illegal distances with stickers giving legally-permitted distances - or else commission new signs.

Judge Simpson, however, ventured the suggestion that Transco/McAlpine had another alternative (to over-labelling) on learning that their metric signs were illegal. "They might", he suggested, "have wanted to put the sign in storage against the day - if it ever comes - that metric distance signs are allowed on British roads".

"Big Thumbs Up"? Not really.

The fact that the charge of criminal damage was upheld means that the claimed defence under the 1980 Highways act was not recognised, nor did the judges accept the argument that the original case had been misrepresented.

The aquittal was on a narrow legal point about the definition of theft. Had the prosecution been able to prove, to the satisfaction of the judges, an attempt to permanently deprive then the whole case would have been upheld.

The judges chose to be leniant in this case, but it does not legalise the activities of ARM. If anyone else decides to prosecute ARM activists the outcome may well be different.

QUOTE: >The fact that the charge of criminal damage was upheld means that the claimed defence under the 1980 Highways act was not recognised...

Section 131 of the 1980 Highways Act states: "If a person without lawful authority or excuse pulls down or obliterates a traffic sign placed on or over the highway - he is guilty of an offence; but it is a defence in any proceedings under this subsection to show that the traffic sign was not lawfully placed".

The judge's ruling is consistent with both parts of this section. Tony obliterated a sign that he did not own; therefore, the judge upheld the conviction of criminal damage ("without lawful authority...guilty of an offence").

However, the judge then went on to grant Tony an absolute discharge ("it is a defence...to show that the traffic sign was not lawfully placed").

QUOTE: >The aquittal was on a narrow legal point about the definition of theft. Had the prosecution been able to prove, to the satisfaction of the judges, an attempt to permanently deprive then the whole case would have been upheld.

Well, they didn't prove it, because there was no evidence. The reason why there was no evidence was because there wasn't any; the allegations were not true. The elements of honesty and intending to permanently deprive are fundamental to the definition of theft. Judge Kelly has been made to look very foolish by this appeal outcome.

QUOTE: >The judges chose to be leniant in this case, but it does not legalise the activities of ARM.

The judgement upholds section 131 of the 1980 Highways Act. It indicates that someone can commit an offence but be protected under the law.

Pip is incorrect to say that the case was decided on a 'narrow legal point'.

In a case of theft - see Section 1 Theft Act - there are four elements that need to be proved.

The Judges at Maidstone on 31 October unanimously and comprehensively decided there was 'no evidence whatsoever' of two out of the four elements required to prove theft:

(1) dishonesty, and

(2) intention to permanently deprive.

Let it be very carefully noted that this was despite the giving of a false name on the spur of the moment when challenged by a McAlpine driver.

The other elements of theft I had admitted from the outset - namely:

(3) 'appropriating' a sign which did not belong to me and,

(4) which I did not have the owner's permission to remove.

It is difficult to underestimate the significance of this judgement for ARM's campaign. This appeal court ruling means the following:

1. Unequivocal recognition that metric signs are unlawful

2. Authority for the general public to remove them so long as the owner is offered the opportunity to recover them [I should add that this would also be subject to road users not being placed at any additional risk at as a result of the removal]

3. Covering over an illegal sign is now regarded as 'minimal' damage - so minimal that an absolute discharge is the appropriate penalty. It's extremely unlikely that the Crown Prosecution Service will waste a lot more public money bringing other cases when six arrests have so far produced no more than one absolute discharge.

Judge Simspon made another observation during the proceedings that greatly assists ARM's campaign. He said: "If Mr Bennett had had with him a sticky label with the correct distance in yards and had affixed that over the unlawful metric distance instead of using paint, he may well not have been in this court today".

That comment in effect authorised and endorsed ARM's 'raids' where we affix the correct distances in British measures over unlawful metric distances.

Judge Simpson, Mr Tugger and Mrs Echlin in their judgment (described by a 'Daily Mail reporter yesterday as 'unusually robust') have sent out a very clear message on illegal metric road signs to local authorities, construction companies, the Department of Transport, the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Let them all note it and absorb it

QUOTE:>The judge's ruling is consistent with both parts of this section. Tony obliterated a sign that he did not own; therefore, the judge upheld the conviction of criminal damage ("without lawful authority...guilty of an offence").

Tony was found guilty of an offence under laws relating to criminal damage not the 1980 Highways Act.

QUOTE:>However, the judge then went on to grant Tony an absolute discharge ("it is a defence...to show that the traffic sign was not lawfully placed").

The absolute discharge was because of the minimal extent of the damage. The original sentence became disproportionate to the crime once the element of theft and dishonesty had been removed.

QUOTE:>Well, they didn't prove it, because there was no evidence. The reason why there was no evidence was because there wasn't any; the allegations were not true. The elements of honesty and intending to permanently deprive are fundamental to the definition of theft. Judge Kelly has been made to look very foolish by this appeal outcome.

Tony did remove the signs and deprived the ownwers of them. He only agreed to return them once they had given in to his demands. It was not unreasonable for Judge Kelly to regard this as theft.

QUOTE:>The judgement upholds section 131 of the 1980 Highways Act. It indicates that someone can commit an offence but be protected under the law.

The judgement may not have contravened the Highways Act but that is not the same as upholding it. I wouldn't be too sure about being "protected under the law" in future on these grounds.

Perhaps you could quote from the transcript where Judge Simpson actually says he let you off because the the metric signs were illegal.

Pip - in your last posting, you have deliberately put words into my mouth which I have not uttered.

Judge Simpson's decision (the unanimous decision of all three of them, that is) and his reasons for it are a matter of public record and will be transcribed and published shortly.

I am confident that both ARM and BWMA will ensure that his decisions and reasons are circulated as widely as possible. We can then all draw what conclusions we may from them

The word "honesty" has been used a lot in this thread.

It is a shame that the likes of "Pip" cannot learn the true meaning of this word and execute it once in a while. It appears that a lot of people on the "metric side" could advance their cause a little if they could just purchase a dictionary first

Tony: Fair enough, I will await the publication the transcript.

Steve: Please be assured that anything I say here is born of honest opinion. I'm sure the same applies to you. Lets not start calling each other liars, either directly or by implication.

When the written judgement is available, we shall post it on the web for all to digest.

My dad had a rather amusing quote on this case:

"Basically you've got some nugget going round nicking road signs but because of some legal technicality he's got off with it."

Your father is definitely suffering from 'IDS - 'Information Deficiency Syndrome'.

I think you should inform him that:

1. Metric signs are illegal under the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations

2. Metric signs are not 'nicked'; they're removed only when a company or council refuses to remove an illegal sign from the roadway [i.e. one that is 'unlawfully placed on the highway' - see Section 131(2) Highways Act 1980]

3. The 'legal technicalities' are as follows:

A. that two of the four criteria necessary in British law to convict a person of theft were absent, namely:
(i) dishonesty and
(ii) intention to permanently deprive

B. that the 'damage' to the signs whose illegal distances were covered over was so minimal that no penalty was justified.

Tony, you're arguing with a aflag burner there, mate!

Still - worth trying I guess

Isn't Tony's defence that he had not pinched the transco signs because he did not intend to deprive the owners of them permanently rather similar to Paul Burrells arguement? The only difference seems to be that Transco signs just don't have the same media appeal.

Date: 31/10/2002 23:37

Copyright 2002 PA News.

By Sherna Noah, PA News
A "metric martyr" who stole 29 metric road signs and
daubed others with black paint today won his appeal after a judge overturned his conviction for theft. UK Independence Party member Tony Bennett was labelled an "imperial vigilante" by the district judge who sentenced him to 50 hours community service in May this year. But today a judge at Maidstone Crown Court overturned the 55-year-old's conviction for theft, saying there was no evidence of dishonesty or that he
intended to permanently deprive the owners of their signs. Mr Bennett from Harlow, Essex, denied theft and criminal damage and said that the signs, near Tenterden, Kent, were "illegal". The father-of-two, a market researcher, argued that by law all road signs must be in miles and yards, not metres and kilometres. He drove to Tenterden on July 1 last year after a tip-off about "illegal" road signs and buried them in four locations underneath bushes before retrieving them in October last year and handing them to their owners. Maidstone Crown Court judge Keith Simpson today overturned Mr Bennett's conviction for theft and upheld his conviction for criminal damage but reduced his sentence - 50 hours of community service to run concurrently with the 50-hour sentence for theft - to an absolute discharge. After the hearing, Mr Bennett said: "I did not expect this but I'm very, very pleased. But the most important thing is that my action has been vindicated. "Now we have the authority to move more signs from roads if they are illegal. We're not going to accept them. "Dozens of these signs were being erected across the country but because of our campaign there are less of them now and 1,846 have already been removed or amended. "Surveys show that the overwhelming majority of British people want things to stay as they are." The British Weights and Measure Association said: "Metric road signs in this country are illegal. "Companies and local authorities that put up metric road signs do so with no legal authority. "The outcome today sends a strong message to councils and companies that the law has to be complied with." Sentencing in May, Maidstone Magistrates Court District Judge Michael Kelly told the metric activist that he was a vandal. "His contention that he has a right to steal and damage property to prevent the display of metric road signs is patently absurd. "He had no right or authority to take the law into his own hands and become an `imperial vigilante'," he said. The court heard that the metre signs were a breach of Government regulations but not the law as Mr Bennett claimed.

The last sentence in the PA report is completely inaccurate.

What happened was that the Court heard that metric distance signs were unlawful, but not a crime.

During my cross-examination, I was asked:

"Erecting metric distance signs isn't a crime, is it?".

To which I replied: "No, it isn't, and I have never said that it was"!

With reference to your last posting Tony.

It is good to see you acknowledge that erecting metric signs is not a crime, both in court as well as here, but please remember criminal damage is a crime by definition, a fact you must also acknowledge.

You now have a criminal record as a result of this case. I just hope for your sake and for that of your family that this will all be worth it in the end.

The judge and magistrates in the case said that the criminal damage was 'so minimal that an absolute discharge is the appropriate remedy'. They added that the offence was a 'technical' one. In truth, the damage caused *no* extra expense to the company except that they had to buy some signs in yards which they would had to have done anyway.

Actually, erecting a metric sign - or leaving one up - *could* be a common law crime in English law if you look at the R -v- Dythan case that I've posted on another thread.

Steve Thoburn is also a 'criminal' - and he got a stiffer sentence than me - a conditional discharge. So are Julian Harman, Colin Hunt, John Dove and Peter Collins, all with conditional discharges which cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to achieve. And for what? - for selling to their own people in the system of weights and measures they were familiar with and preferred! - at the whim of a handful of top Euro-politicians and against the wishes of 93% of the population.

Criticising the conduct of the Communist regime in the U.S.S.R. was once a crime, punishable by up to 30 years in prison*. Then, in an instant, it became praiseworthy to do so.

Tens of thousands of traders continue to price up in pounds although they've not yet been charged and convicted. Tescos routinely commit hundreds of criminal offences every day by lead pricing many of their fruit and veg in pounds.

None of the above are criminal in my eyes. They've only been *deemed* criminal by the untrustworthy political elite of this country, which is pursuing power and following an agenda which I predict will eventually prove inimical to the interests of the peoples of *all* of Europe, not just Britain.

------------------------------------------------------

* A Politburo member, dressed of course in a fur coat, visited a gulag. All the prisoners were lined up by the camp commandant in serried ranks, shivering in the cold. The Politburo member talks to a prisoner and asks:

"How long are you in here for?"
"5 years, comrade".
"And what did you do wrong?"
"Nothing, comrade".

He speaks to another:

"How long are you in here for?"
"10 years, comrade".
"And what did you do wrong?"
"Nothing, comrade".

He speaks to a third prisoner.

"And how long are you in here for?"
"15 years, comrade".
"And what did you do wrong?"
"Nothing, comrade".

The Politburo member spits in his face and slaps his face hard. "You liar!", he exclaims. "No-one gets more than 10 years in the Soviet Union for nothing!"

------------------------------------------------------

In the days of the U.S.S.R., Kruschev is the head of a Russian delegation attending a top-level international conference. The Swiss Prime Minister introduces his cabinet to him.

"...and this, Mr Kruschev, is Mr Schwartz, our Minister for the Navy".

There is a long pause.

Kruschev eventually says: "But Switzerland hasn't got a navy!"

The Prime Minister replies: "Er, no, Mr Kruschev. But then the Soviet Union has a Minister of Justice"

You overlook the fact pointed out by the judge himself (according to an earlier quote from you) that the signs might have been usable come the day metric signs were allowed on British roads.

I would add that the signs rouined by you might have been deployable overseas (or even in Ireland) if the contractor does indeed do (or may in future) work on the continent as well as here.

Who knows. You may try to minimise it as much as you like but the fact remains that the signs were the property of the contractor and daubing black paint over them caused a material loss.

The signs were not 'ruined' - please remember that Judge Simpson said the damage was 'minimal'. You are grossly over-exaggerating.

The signs were subsequently over-labelled by McAlpine in yards, which they would have had to do anyway (and certainly wouldn't have got around to doing but for my intervention).

The signs could not have been used in Ireland nor on the continent because the lettering on them does not conform with their traffic regulations - neither in Ireland nor in any continental country.

"You are grossly over-exaggerating."

Going to all the trouble you went to over such a narrow point as yards v metres. I call that exaggeration.

"The signs were subsequently over-labelled by McAlpine in yards, which they would have had to do anyway (and certainly wouldn't have got around to doing but for my intervention)."

Didn't have much choice after you had been at them.

"The signs could not have been used in Ireland nor on the continent because the lettering on them does not conform with their traffic regulations - neither in Ireland nor in any continental country."

I very much doubt that the company would have faced any serious objections for using temporary signs that deviated in such a minor way. Unless of course there are a bunch of vigilanties going around hung up on minor details about traffic sign regulations over there as well.