Tutorial 2 ENG CRIM PDF

Preview

Summary

questions and answers + how to answer a problem question ...

Description

Tutorial 2 – Theft etc. Theft: Actus reus: appropriation of property belonging to someone else Mens rea: intention to deprive someone of their property Authority: theft act 1968 Reading List Morris (1984) AC 320 Broom v Crowther (1984) 148 JP 592 Lawrence (1972) AC 626 Gomez (1993) AC 442 Feely (1973) QB 530 Ghosh (1982) QB 1053 Lavender (1994) Crim LR 297 Easom (1971) 2 QB 315 Lloyd (1985) QB 829 Parker v British Airways Board (1982) Q.B. 1004 (Civil case) S. 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 Problem 1:

Angus was shopping in his local Lidl’s supermarket and had selected venison steaks that he wished to buy and placed them in his shopping basket. These were expensive however Angus planned to find a lower price tag and substitute it for the price tag on the venison steaks.

He noticed that his movements were being observed by a store detective and decided to return the steaks to the freezer he had taken them from. He then went to another freezer and removed an expensive premium microwave meal from the freezer and placed it in his basket but before doing so took a price label from a Lidl value meal nearby and placed it on the premium meal. He then joined the queue at the checkout point.

When Angus placed his goods on the conveyor belt, Jean, a checkout operator, noticed something was amiss. Thinking that Gladys, a co-worker, had attached a lower price tag to the premium meal, Jean informed Angus of the correct price. Angus paid the correct amount for the premium meal and left.

Instead of recording the transaction at the till, as required under Lidl’s procedures, Jean placed the money for the premium meal in the drawer of the till. She had planned to take the money for herself at the end of her shift as she and Gladys had arranged to see a film in a nearby cinema.

Gladys, who also worked as a Lidl checkout operator, took a £20 note from her till, as she needed some money for the cinema. The next day she returned the sum, in the form of a £20 note, to the till. Gladys took and returned the money in spite of a recent memo from Lidl head office stating that staff should not borrow from tills without prior authorisation from the supermarket manager.

Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Angus, Jean and Gladys.

 Angus: similar to – r v morris: changed prices in a shop – switched label  Appropriation of owners’ rights – don’t need to take goods away  Guilty of theft – very least attempted theft – on Morris – argue is complete theft  Gladys: borrowing – intent to return – feely – manager in betting shop intent to return in few days but actions was dishonesty  M.R – dishonesty and intent to deprive needed  To temporarily deprive could be a defence – but would not be the case with cash and money – allowed with objects – Lloyd – cinema took tapes considered only borrowing – breached various slaws against piracy but returned them quickly  Difference between Lloyd and taking cash: you’re not returning the exact same notes  Guilty of theft? – yes appropriated property took money and spent it – it belonged to the store – knew she didn’t have permission – memo said it shouldn’t be done – didn’t return the exact same notes/coins = theft

 Jean: uncertain – doesn’t say she spent the money – may say she appropriated the rights of the owner – had the intent to take it out and spend it? – hasn’t recorded the transaction - more likely to be attempted theft – putting money in till without recording it

Problem 2:

Bert is a former law student. Whilst out jogging one day, he passed by the local golf course and noticed the security guards, who usually patrolled the course, were not in sight. Bert decided to take a short cut through the golf course in order to call on his friend, George, a keen golfer. On route through the golf course, Bert collected a number of abandoned golf balls thinking that George would be happy to have any additional golf balls offered to him.

Bert was arrested and charged with theft and seeks your advice as a law student.

He says that he is not up to date on the law of theft but recalls his lecturer making a point to the effect that a person is guilty of theft if, inter alia, the property in question belongs to another. Bert argues that the golf balls cannot be regarded as property belonging to another. Advise Bert regarding his criminal liability.  Bert: question of ownership and abandoning and issue of dishonesty  Ownership: parker v British airways: court on appeal the person who found the bracelet has possessory right which is good against anyone but true owner – true owner couldn’t be found –

could airport lounge own bracelet? P no – in order to possess would have to indicate intent to exercise control over longue and things in it  Remedy: Security guard – or a sign for lost property to be returned to the desk  Dishonesty: don’t have to deal with if it’s obvious they have been dishonest – first look at statute (theft act 1968) – s2: Bert couldn’t argue this section – thought had right to abandoned golf balls – only did it as there was no security guards

Problem 3:

Two farmers, Bob and Hector, farmed adjacent farms which had large herds of cattle. Both receive cattle feed from the same supplier.

Bob found himself running low on cattle feed and knew that Hector had a reserve store located on a field on his farm. Bob was expecting a supply of cattle feed in a few days but, without telling Hector, took a lorry and one of his farmhands to Hector’s yard, and removed enough cattle feed to keep his herd fed for a few days. Hector noticed the loss of the cattle feed from his farm that evening and reported it to the police, who immediately asked Bob about it. He replied: “But I would have let Hector have the cattle feed back in a day or two.”

Might Bob’s reply be the basis of any kind of answer to a charge of theft? Would it make any difference to Bob’s liability if he intended to return the cattle feed in a week’s time?

 Issue of returning goods – could say he was just borrowing the cattle feed? – no  Didn’t tell hector and if did return it wouldn’t be the same feed  Honesty: rely on provision that owner would consent – living near to each other – an emergency – animals at risk if didn’t have food etc.  Ought to have asked if such good friends – should’ve asked permission or left a note  Bob not acted reasonably – not honest – depends on how interpret apply tests  Common law test for dishonesty: jury would have to look at – doesn’t fall within stat grounds to say behavior was honest  Two key cases: feely -betting shop – not to permanently deprive + not been dishonest as the employers owed him more than. He had taken – judge initially directed the jury that this was dishonest. But on appeal held that judge should’ve left this to the jury to decide  Ghosh – doctor in private hospital – charged with theft for fees claimed under the NHS – two stage tests for dishonesty: apply the objective test of what the standards of ordinary decent people consider the conduct dishonest: subjective test: would the defendant himself realise he acted dishonestly – was convicted

Pr obl em quest i on:I LAAC FORMAT: I NTRODUCTI ON: I DENTFYCRI ME AND RELEVANTDEFECES COULD ALSO I NCLUDE CRI MESTHATCOULD BE –AND SAYWHYI TSNOT

LAW: DEFI NI TI ON OFTHE CRI ME AND THE DEFENCES MENSREAAND ACTUSREUSFOR COMMON LAW STATOFFENCESDON’ THAVE MENSREA

APPLYTO THE FACTSI N THE QUESTI ON: SOME I NFO THATI SI RRELEVANTLEGALLYSPEAKI NG NEED ABI LI TYTO PI CK OUTAND MATCH WI TH DEFI NI TI ON

AUHTORI TES: FOR ALLTHE LEGALDEFI NTI ONSMETI ONED BRI EF CASE NAME OR STATSECTI ON ATBEGI NNI NG OFTHE SENTENCE OR I N BRACKETSATEND OFSENTENCE FACTS ARE SI MI ALR TO QUESTI ON: REFER BACK AND LI NK I T OR MENTI ON KEY DI FFERENCE

CONCLUSI ON: QUI CK AND SUMMATI VE BRI NG I N FACTSI FRELEVANTTO MAKE APOI NT I FPEROSN I SLI ABLE I FLAW I SUNCLEAR –JURYDI SCRETI ON ON TESTSETC AND WHATTHE BESTOUTCOME WOULD BE...