Freeganism, Skip Diving and the Law

I absolutely detest waste.

To me it is absolutely obscene that the UK throws away around 10 million tonnes of perfectly good food every year. Around 15 percent of that originates from retail and hospitality premises. 

Every night across the land supermarkets, restaurants and hotels are loading their bins with perfectly good food that will not keep for another day, or that has been prepared in excess of their requirements.

So where does the law stand on people liberating waste from skips and bins?

If they have permission of the person owning or controlling the skip or bin, then there is absolutely no problem at all. If they don't then they could, at least in theory, fall foul of the law.

Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines the offence of theft as thus: "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."

I have previously written a quick guide to the offence of theft, which readers may find of interest.

There are five elements to the offence - three involving the actus reus (the guilty act) and two involving the mens rea (the guilty state of mind). All five elements must coincide in order for the offence to be made out.

In terms of mens rea theft can only be committed by a person acting dishonestly, which is why a person who has sought permission via the correct avenues, and accepted it in good faith, cannot be guilty of theft.

In terms of actus reus, a person can only be guilty of theft if they appropriate property belonging to another. Appropriation is very broadly defined to encompass any act where a person behaves as if they are the owner of property. Removing items from a skip or bin is most definitely appropriation. The property must also belong to another, which is not quite so clear cut.

It is a fact of the law that property that has been abandoned, therefore which has no owner, cannot be stolen. Abandonment means the owner has relinquished all rights and interest in the property. It also means, crucially, that they have not passed those rights or interest to anyone else.

You might think that disposal of property in a skip or bin signifies the owner's abandonment of it, but the law does not adopt that viewpoint.

In the case of Williams v Phillips (1957) 41 Cr App R 5 the Divisional Court was required to consider whether rubbish left outside on the street for collection could be considered abandoned property.

The court took the view that as long as the rubbish was on the street it belonged to the householder who put it there. It further determined that ownership of the rubbish transferred to the local authority when it was placed in the bin lorry.

The matter was revisited in the case of Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates [2011] 1 Cr App Rep 15. In that case the Divisional Court was called on to consider whether clothing left in bin bags outside a charity shop had been abandoned.

Not surprisingly, the court took the view that the donor had intended ownership of the clothing to pass to the charities concerned. In common with the earlier case, it was of the view that ownership remained with the donor until the charity had taken possession of the clothing.

The upshot of the legislation and case law is that anyone who removes items from either a skip or bin without first seeking permission is likely to be guilty of theft.

The court is not flooded with people accused of stealing from skips and bins, but it does occasionally happen.

I recall a case more than a decade ago where two freegans were accused of theft having been caught bin diving at the rear of a supermarket.

Given the media interest the matter was dealt with by a District Judge, who suitably berated the prosecutor for the mere fact it was before the court.

Having begrudgingly concluded that the offence was made out the Judge, who is sadly now departed, handed the couple an absolute discharge to mark the conviction, again reiterating the absurdity of the situation.

Prosecution in these circumstances is rarely in the public interest, which is why you hear of very few similar cases.