Around 25 years ago, I was invited to Derbyshire Police HQ to contribute to a discussion on how to assess whether a vehicle purchaser could properly be regarded as “innocent”, though more forcibly as ‘what should a purchaser be required to do to be considered innocent‘
The underlying problem was a difficult one, and arose from the constabulary’s run-in with Mr Costello that followed another dispute between Mr Webb and the Merseyside police which arguably, more clearly and concisely conveyed the problem (for police):
…’in the absence of any evidence that anybody else is the true owner, once the police right of retention comes to an end, the person from whom they were compulsorily taken is entitled to possession‘.
In the case of Derbyshire police, they had seized a suspected stolen car but:
- the true identity of the vehicle in question could not be clearly established.
That issue was reflected in a Court of Appeal decision at the time, which reinforced a key point:
- where identity becomes unclear
- where parts are altered, substituted or merged
- where records are inconsistent
the ability to assert “better title” becomes significantly more difficult
The law protects ownership – but only where it can still recognise what is owned.
The purpose of that meeting was to explore whether more structured requirements could be introduced for purchasers, referred to, at that time, as “Lord’s Law” — effectively placing a greater onus on buyers to demonstrate that they had acquired a vehicle legitimately.
The proposal did not progress.
On a separate occasion, during a Metropolitan Police training session on stolen vehicles, an officer expressed their view:
“there is no such thing as an innocent purchaser”
Whether intended literally or not, it reflects a tension within these cases.
Similarly, in another case involving a purchaser who had been defrauded, the response given was that the transaction involved an element of risk due to the purchase price being well below market value. The police stance adopted was:
“we do enforce gambling debts … the buyer took a risk“
These perspectives are not universal, but they do illustrate a broader issue:
- where risk is perceived to sit and
- how responsibility can shift
The difficulty is that, in practice, the innocent purchaser may be:
- the only party left with a measurable loss
- without recourse to insurance and
- uncertain as to what support, if any, is available
All of which reinforces the underlying point that innocence and title are not the same.
When identity, process and responsibility are unclear, the outcome can feel anything but fair.