Theft

Theft – s1 Theft Act 1968

• A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Actus Reus

S3 Appropriation: The assumption of any rights of the owner (Morris, Gomez)

• Where consent was induced by dishonesty, it would be deemed irrelevant thus an appropriation can take place. (Lawrence) No need for adverse interference (Gomez)
• Appropriation is a “neutral word” – there is no difference between cases where consent was induced by fraud r any circumstances. All are assumption by gift  (Hinks)
• Can be a later assumption of a right s3(1), where D decides to keep or deal with property in breach of owners rights.
  

Reform of Non-Fatal - example essay

Recommendations for reform has been made by both the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Law Commission. The Law Commission has pointed out three major problems with the Offences Against the Person Act 1961. These are:

• Using obscure and old-fashioned language. Words such as ‘maliciously’ and ‘grievous’.
• The structure of the Act is complicated.
• Non-lawyers find the Act completely unintelligible.

Some of these problems have been resolved by the courts. Debate on the meaning of ‘inflict’ in s20 on whether a technical assault was needed came to an end in Burstow (1998) which said that it did not need technical assault. The courts have also extended the meaning of ‘bodily harm’ to mental health so defendants causing such injury can be convicted.

Reform of Murder - example essay

In 2006 the Law Commission published a report: Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, which pointed out that there were many problems with the law on murder.

One problem was that the law was developed bit by bit and defined by numerous cases instead of being a coherent whole Act. One of the main areas that caused problems is the meaning of ‘intention’, which is a concept affecting all specific intent offences but most of the cases which the House of Lords have heard involved murder. S8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 tried to make the law clear on this point by saying that (a) the jury is not bound to infer intention from the fact that the result of D’s actions was natural and probable, and (b) shall decide whether D did intend or foresee it based on the evidence. Moloney (1985) ruled that foresight of consequences was not intention, but only evidence from which intention could be inferred in accordance to s8(b). The intention test in Moloney was that (a) was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of D’s act and (b) did D foresee that it was.

Reform of Defences - example essay

There are several controversies in sentencing, such as in the cases of Brown (1994) and Wilson (1997). Brown did not have a defence of consent, whereas Wilson did despite the fact that the ‘victims’ in Brown did not need medical care, whereas the victim in Wilson did. It is noted that these cases are distinguished by the fact pain for sexual gratification is not allowed, while causing it for body adornment is allowed. This could be because the judges are trying to impose their own moral values to law, which would be illegal because it would be judicial law-making. The same thing happened to Emmett (1999) where it was ruled that there is no defence if harm is more than ‘transient or trivial’ injury. Yet in Wilson it was allowed.

Murder

“Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.”

Actus reus (AR):

• Reasonable creature in being.
• A foetus does not count as a reasonable creature in being.
• For a baby to count as one, it must have totally been expelled from the mother and have an independent circulation. The umbilical cord does not need to be cut. Need not have taken the first breath.
• Attorney-General’s Reference (No3 of 1994)(1997): if a foetus is injured and born alive and dies afterwards as a result of the injuries, then there is AR for murder/manslaughter.
  

Fault - example essay

It is considered that the establishment of liability based on 'fault' is the fundamental principle of English Law. Consider arguments for and against this view.

Fault is a concept in law which refers to the blameworthiness and responsibility in each area of law. This is closely linked to the mental state of the defendant. The basic principle of fault is that a defendant should be able to contemplate the harm that his actions may cause, and should therefore aim to avoid them.

Fault is an essential element in law, as it can be seen an any area of law, although its importance varies depending on what kind of offence is being dealt with.

Fault can be seen as the basis of criminal law, illustrated by the requirement of the mens rea in almost every criminal offence. Even if the actus reus is proven, a person cannot be liable for a crime unless his mens rea is proven. Different offences require different levels of mens rea, which would also mean different levels of fault.

Law and Justice - example essay

There are many different theories of justice. Using criminal or civil law or both, consider the extent of the relationship between law and justice.

When it comes to law and justice, we would expect that justice is the word of law itself, or that the sole purpose of law is to promote justice. Laws are rules of conduct or action imposed and enforced by the state (Austin), which has coercive power (Hobbes). Justice is the concept of fairness and equality which expects that laws should be non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary, promoting justice and fairness for everyone in society. Aristotle was one of the earliest philosophers to put forward the view that all law should promote justice. However, there are many instances where law and justice do not easily coincide. The most obvious being the so-called ‘miscarriages of justice’. The existence of the Criminal Cases Review commission is illustrative of these mistakes which have led the law to treat people unjustly.

Law and Morals - example essay

Examine the relationship between law and morals and the extent that the law promotes it.

Law can be defined as a body of principles (Salmond) imposed and enforced by the sovereign (authorities)(Austin) with coercive power (Hobbes). Blackstone gave the definition that law made from pre-existing customs exist as positive law separate from its legislator or judge.

Morals, on the other hand, can be seen as principles of right or wrong resulting from one’s conscience or social standards of behaviour. They are customs developed over team which may eventually become laws (Bills of Exchange 1882). Religion is arguably the largest source of morality, e.g. the UK’s laws on murder and theft can be traced back to the 10 commandments.

There are a number of clear distinctions between law and morals. For example, law can always be proved by referring to a written record of it while morality is opinion and open for dispute.

Defence - Duress

Duress can be by threats or circumstances

Duress is not available for murder or attempted murder

Duress by Threats

• Must be a threat of death or serious injury but can consider cumulative effects of threats (Valderrama – Vega)
• Threat can be to family or friends (Martin)
• Can be to a total stronger (Conway)

Two stage test (Graham)(Howe)

• Was D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably believed he had good cause to fear serious injury or death? (subjective)
• If so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused have responded in the same way? (objective)
  

Criminal Damage

Basic Offence

S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971

• “A person without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless ... shall be guilty of an offence”

Actus Reus

Destroy or damage

• Slight damage was sufficient to prove damage (Gayford v Ghouler)
• Includes non-permanent damage if it requires effort, or money to remove it (A (a juvenile) v R)
  

Blackmail

S21 Theft Act 1968

Actus Reus

Demand

• Can be any method
• Can be implicit (Collister v Warhurst)
• If the demand is posted, it is effective at the moment of posting (Treacy v DPP)

Unwarranted

• Not unwarranted under s21(1) if D believed:
1. He had reasonable grounds of making the demand, and
2. The use of menaces was proper means of enforcing the demand
   

Obtaining Services Dishonestly

S11 Fraud Act 2006

s11(1) Obtaining services by 

(a) a dishonest act

(b) in breach of subsection (2). Broken down below

Actus Reus

Obtains – services must actually be obtained, cannot be an omission

Making off without payment

S3(1) Theft Act 1978

• To cover up loophole found in (Greenburg)

Actus Reus

Makes off

• D must have “made off” – left the scene where payment was required (McDavitt)

Goods supplied or service done

• If not completed then there is no offence (Troughton v Met Police)
  

Fraud

Fraud by false representation – s2 Fraud Act 2006

S2(1)

1. Dishonestly makes a false representation
2. Intends, by making the representation
1. To make a gain, or
2. Cause a loss or expose other to risk of loss

Actus reus

Making a representation

S2(3) Can be to as to fact or law, or state of mind

S2(4) Can be express or implied

• There is no limit on the way in which representation must be expressed. Can be written, spoken or published.
• (Silverman) excessive quotation for work to be done
• (Barnard) implied representation
• (Lambie) by misusing a credit card dishonestly D is implying he has authority to use it
• (Gilmartin) by drawing cheques D implied there is enough funds to meet them
• (Met Police Commander v Charles) D knew he did not have enough and would exceed his overdraft limit
  

Burglary

S9(1)(a) Enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser, with intent to:

• Steal
• Inflict GBH
• Cause criminal damage

S9(1)(b) Having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser:

• Steals or attempts to steal
• Inflicts or attempts to inflict GBH

Elements

Entry

• (Collins) “effective and substantial”
• (Brown) “effective”
• (Ryan) “evidence for the jury to find the D has entered”
  

Robbery

Robbery s8 Theft Act 1968

• A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

Actus Reus

• There must have been a completed theft (Robinson)
• The moment the theft is complete there is a robbery (if force is used to steal) (Corcoran v Anderton)