Warren A. Lyon is a Lecturer in Law associated with SOAS and has shared this case review. Williams v Phillips (1957); England Court of Appeal; the Governing Law. This is the order. If stealing refuse which they are sent out to collect on behalf of the Corporation, criminal proceedings will be taken. Click here.

Warren A. Lyon is a Lecturer in Law associated with SOAS and has shared this case review. 

Williams v Phillips (1957); England Court of Appeal; the Governing Law. This is the order. 

 If stealing refuse which they are sent out to collect on behalf of the Corporation, criminal proceedings will be taken. What happened in both these cases was that the dustmen had gone out and collected refuse of one sort or another from various places. In both cases what they had collected was wool rags, and no doubt there is value in wool rags because they can be used for the purposes of shoddy. The first case shows that the refuse which was collected, including the rags and wool, was put into bags which were the property of the Corporation and then put into the Corporation's carts. The only difference I can see in the second case is that there is no direct finding that the refuse was put into sacks belonging to the Corporation, but it was put into sacks. I am quite willing to assume for the purposes of this judgmentthat in that case the sacks were not the sacks of the Corporation. They were *8 undoubtedly put into the Corporationdust-cart. In each case, instead of taking this refuse back to the Corporation yard and there handing it over to theproper officials who would then have dealt with it in accordance with the agreement, the appellants took it themselves.There was also some scrap metal which they took and sold. The question is whether they were guilty of larceny.The first point that is taken here, that the property was abandoned, is on the face of it untenable. Of course, that is notso. If I put refuse in my dustbin outside my house, I am not abandoning it in the sense that I am leaving it for anybodyto take it away. I am putting it out so that it may be collected and taken away by the local authority, and until it hasbeen taken away by the local authority it is my property. It is my property and I can take it back and prevent anybodyelse from taking it away. It is simply put there for the Corporation or the local authority, as the case may be Williams v Phillips, (1957) 41 Cr. App. R. 5 (1957) © 2018 Thomson Reuters. 2An agreement between the union to which all the persons charged belonged and the Corporation provided that theproceeds of the sale of refuse collected by the dustmen employed by the Corporation should be divided proportionatelybetween the members of the crew and the Corporation. That agreement was exhibited at the Corporation premises, aswere notices warning dustmen that if, apart from the agreement, they appropriated refuse which they had been sentout to collect on behalf of the Corporation, criminal proceedings would be taken. The appellants were aware of theagreement and had read the notices. In each case refuse, including rags and wool, had been collected by the appellantsfrom factories and other premises. The refuse was then put by the appellants into sacks, which were placed on theCorporation's dust-carts. In the first, but not the second, case there was a specific finding that the sacks belonged tothe Corporation. In each case, instead of taking the refuse back to the Corporation yard and there handing it over tothe proper officials, the appellants took it from the carts and sold it themselves.The justices convicted and fined the appellants, who appealed. *7Henry Newman , for the appellants.N. R. Blaker , for the respondent.The Lord Chief Justice:These are two cases stated by justices for the City of Bristol, before whom several of the dustmen employed by theCorporation were convicted of larceny. It is a class of case which is not altogether unfamiliar in these courts. For along time past local authorities, realising that there is often a considerable value in refuse which has to be collectedfrom factories or elsewhere, have determined that it is not to be appropriated by the dustmen themselves. There is infact, as is found in this case, an agreement between the union and the Corporation, though that has not any very greatbearing on the question whether a criminal offence was committed except as showing whether the appellants wereacting honestly or dishonestly. The agreement is to the effect that any value there is found to be in the sale of refuseis to be divided between the members of the crew and the Corporation, the Corporation taking one part and eachmember of the crew taking another part. That agreement is exhibited at the Corporation premises and the employeesare warned that if, apart from this agreement, they appropriate the refuse which they are sent out to collect on behalfof the Corporation, criminal proceedings will be taken.What happened in both these cases was that the dustmen had gone out and collected refuse of one sort or another fromvarious places. In both cases what they had collected was wool rags, and no doubt there is value in wool rags becausethey can be used for the purposes of shoddy. The first case shows that the refuse which was collected, including theserags and wool, was put into bags which were the property of the Corporation and then put into the Corporation'scarts. The only difference I can see in the second case is that there is no direct finding that the refuse was put into sacksbelonging to the Corporation, but it was put into sacks. I am quite willing to assume for the purposes of this judgmentthat in that case the sacks were not the sacks of the Corporation. They were *8 undoubtedly put into the Corporationdust-cart. In each case, instead of taking this refuse back to the Corporation yard and there handing it over to theproper officials who would then have dealt with it in accordance with the agreement, the appellants took it themselves.There was also some scrap metal which they took and sold. The question is whether they were guilty of larceny.The first point that is taken here, that the property was abandoned, is on the face of it untenable. Of course, that is notso. If I put refuse in my dustbin outside my house, I am not abandoning it in the sense that I am leaving it for anybodyto take it away. I am putting it out so that it may be collected and taken away by the local authority, and until it hasbeen taken away by the local authority it is my property. It is my property and I can take it back and prevent anybodyelse from taking it away. It is simply put there for the Corporation or the local authority, as the case may beWilliams v Phillips, (1957) 41 Cr. App. R. 5 (1957) © 2018 Thomson Reuters. 2An agreement between the union to which all the persons charged belonged and the Corporation provided that theproceeds of the sale of refuse collected by the dustmen employed by the Corporation should be divided proportionatelybetween the members of the crew and the Corporation. That agreement was exhibited at the Corporation premises, aswere notices warning dustmen that if, apart from the agreement, they appropriated refuse which they had been sentout to collect on behalf of the Corporation, criminal proceedings would be taken. The appellants were aware of theagreement and had read the notices. In each case refuse, including rags and wool, had been collected by the appellantsfrom factories and other premises. The refuse was then put by the appellants into sacks, which were placed on theCorporation's dust-carts. In the first, but not the second, case there was a specific finding that the sacks belonged tothe Corporation. In each case, instead of taking the refuse back to the Corporation yard and there handing it over tothe proper officials, the appellants took it from the carts and sold it themselves.The justices convicted and fined the appellants, who appealed. *7Henry Newman , for the appellants.N. R. Blaker , for the respondent.The Lord Chief Justice:These are two cases stated by justices for the City of Bristol, before whom several of the dustmen employed by theCorporation were convicted of larceny. It is a class of case which is not altogether unfamiliar in these courts. For along time past local authorities, realising that there is often a considerable value in refuse which has to be collectedfrom factories or elsewhere, have determined that it is not to be appropriated by the dustmen themselves. There is infact, as is found in this case, an agreement between the union and the Corporation, though that has not any very greatbearing on the question whether a criminal offence was committed except as showing whether the appellants wereacting honestly or dishonestly. The agreement is to the effect that any value there is found to be in the sale of refuseis to be divided between the members of the crew and the Corporation, the Corporation taking one part and eachmember of the crew taking another part. That agreement is exhibited at the Corporation premises and the employeesare warned that if, apart from this agreement, they appropriate the refuse which they are sent out to collect on behalfof the Corporation, criminal proceedings will be taken.What happened in both these cases was that the dustmen had gone out and collected refuse of one sort or another fromvarious places. In both cases what they had collected was wool rags, and no doubt there is value in wool rags becausethey can be used for the purposes of shoddy. The first case shows that the refuse which was collected, including theserags and wool, was put into bags which were the property of the Corporation and then put into the Corporation'scarts. The only difference I can see in the second case is that there is no direct finding that the refuse was put into sacksbelonging to the Corporation, but it was put into sacks. I am quite willing to assume for the purposes of this judgmentthat in that case the sacks were not the sacks of the Corporation. They were *8 undoubtedly put into the Corporationdust-cart. In each case, instead of taking this refuse back to the Corporation yard and there handing it over to theproper officials who would then have dealt with it in accordance with the agreement, the appellants took it themselves.There was also some scrap metal which they took and sold. The question is whether they were guilty of larceny.The first point that is taken here, that the property was abandoned, is on the face of it untenable. Of course, that is notso. If I put refuse in my dustbin outside my house, I am not abandoning it in the sense that I am leaving it for anybodyto take it away. I am putting it out so that it may be collected and taken away by the local authority, and until it hasbeen taken away by the local authority it is my property. It is my property and I can take it back and prevent anybodyelse from taking it away. It is simply put there for the Corporation or the local authority, as the case may be.

This was the position in 1957.  Add to this the UK Theft Act(1968) where such unlawful taking of garbage is a theft of property where the taking is the actual reus and the intent is confirmed with the intent to permanently deprive the owners of that property contrary to the King's Peace. 

Warren A. Lyon, Lecturer associated with SOAS.