Answering a Theft Question PDF

Preview

Summary

Answering a Theft Question:Fact patterns While shopping in a supermarket Mary picks up a tin of fruit and puts it in her shopping bag. While queuing to go through the checkout she notices the manager watching her. Fearing he has seen what she has done earlier she transfers the tin from her bag into ...

Description

Answering a Theft Question: Fact patterns

1. While shopping in a supermarket Mary picks up a tin of fruit and puts it in her shopping bag. While queuing to go through the checkout she notices the manager watching her. Fearing he has seen what she has done earlier she transfers the tin from her bag into the supermarket trolley and pays for it. Consider Mary’s liability, if any, for theft. 1) First state the defendants potential criminal behaviour: - Picking up the fruit and putting it in her shopping bag 2) The potential offence is theft contrary to S.1(1) Theft act 1968 ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’ 3) Whats the Actus Reus APPROPIATION Define: Section 3 of the Theft Act defines appropriation as ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’ Appropiation can be any one right (R v Morris), and is a neutral act (R v Gomez) There are several incidents of appropiation by Mary. They are picking up the tin, putting it in her handbag, putting it in her trolley, paying for it and leaving the shop. PROPERTY Is the property being capable of being stolen under S4 (1) The tin of fruit is personal property therefore it is capable of being stolen by Mary BELONGING TO ANOTHER At the time of the appropriation was the property belonging to another. Under S.5 (1) states that property belonging to another is property which the other has possession and control over. In this case the shop had possession and control over the tin of fruit until the point of sale where Mary brought the tin of fruit.

Mary has the Actus Reus of the offence when she picks up the tin of fruit, puts It in her bag and then the trolley up until she pays for it. Which then it becomes her property. Section 17 sales of goods act- ownership passes when Mary pays for the property If there has been a crime committed under theft we must then discover whether Mary was being dishonest and was intentionally trying to deprive the other of it at the point at which the property was belonging to another was appropriated. 4) What was the Mens Rea? DISHONESTLY Define: Dishonesty under section 2 of the TA will not apply if he honestly believes that he had the legal right to deprive the owner of the property 2(1)(a) Or If the owner would have consented had they known the circumstances 2(1)(b) Or that the owner could not be found by taking reasonable steps s.2(1)© Here Marys appropiation of the tin of fruit belonging to the shop did not fall within what dishonesty is not under section 2. Therefore the Ivey test must be applied to figure out if Mary had the dishonestly mens rea. The Ivey test looks at the actual state of the defendants knowledge or belief as to the facts and whether the defendants behavior was objectively dishonest by the “standards of ordinary decent people” We can conclude that Mary had the Mens Rea of theft at the time of putting the fruit tin in her bag. This is because Mary had knowledge or belief as to the fact of what she was doing as when she noticed the manager watching her she took the fruit tin out of her bag and placed it in the trolley. Mary’s behavior was objectively dishonest by the “standards of ordinary decent people” as ordinary decent people would not put items in there bag, they would put them in their trolley. INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE In R v Lloyd, it states that whether or not D has an ITPD will generally be clear on the plain meaning of the words. In this case Mary was wanting to keep the tin of fruit therefore she had intention to permanently deprive CONCLUSION

Therefore as a result we can conclude that Mary had committed the Actus reus and Mens reus of the criminal offence Theft when she put the tin of fruit into her bag. 2. At the supermarket petrol station Edward puts £40.00 worth of petrol into his car and then drives off. i)

He never intended to pay

R v Edward The potential criminal behavior of Edward is him not intending to pay for his petrol. The offence that Edward could be potentially liable to is Theft under the Theft Act Section 1 (1) of theft which outlines theft being: ‘ ‘ Actus Reus APPROPIATION Under the theft act section 3. (1) defines appropriation as any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner Appropriation can be any one right of an owner (R v Morris) and is neutral (R v Gomez) meaning that appropiation can still happen even if consent is given When Edward starts putting petrol into his car this is appropiation. PROPERTY Personal property comes under section 4 of the act Petrol is personal property therefore it is capable of being stolen by Edward BELONGING TO ANOTHER At the time of the appropriation was the property belonging to another. Under S.5 (1) states that property belonging to another is property which the other has possession and control over. The petrol station had possession and control over the petrol, so the petrol was belonging to them

Therefore we can conclude that Edward has the Actus Reus of Theft. In order to determine whether he is liable for theft we must discover whether he was dishonest and had intention to permanently deprive the other of it at the same time as he appropriates the property belonging to the petrol station. Mens Rea DISHONESTLY Section 2 of the act defines when a person is not dishonest. This applies if he honestly believes that he had the legal right to deprive the owner of the property 2(1)(a) Or If the owner would have consented had they known the circumstances 2(1)(b) Or that the owner could not be found by taking reasonable steps s.2(1)© Edward does not fall under what is not dishonest in section 2. So the Ivey test must be applied. The Ivey test looks at the actual state of the defendants knowledge or belief as to the facts and whether the defendants behavior was objectively dishonest by the “standards of ordinary decent people” From the Ivey test we cannot be sure whether Edward had the knowledge or belief That he had to pay for his petrol as he never had the intention to. This could be because he was not aware that he had to pay. However, we would need more information to reach this conclusion. Edwards behavior was objectively dishonest by the “standards of ordinary decent people” because an ordinary decent person would pay for their petrol. INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE The case of R v Lloyd states that whether or not D has an ITPD will generally be clear on the plain meaning of the words. Here, it was clear that Edward wanted to keep the petrol and had no intention of giving it back. Therefore he had intention to permanently deprive

CONCLUSION In order to conclude whether Edward has committed the offence of theft we would first need the appropriate information to clarify whether he has the dishonestly mens rea by looking at whether he had knowledge or belief that he had to pay for his petrol. If it is found that Edward did not have knowledge or belief then he would not be liable of theft. However if he did have knowledge or belief then Edward has all components of the Actus Reus and the Mens rea of theft to be liable. Edward has the Actus Reus and Mens Reus of theft when he puts the petrol into his car....