Discussion of the Laws of Theft, Robbery Essay

1111 Words5 Pages
* Jun 12 scenario 1 Q2 * Regarding the liability of Ben (D) there are multiple offence for which he may be liable. D could be liable for Theft under s1 of the Theft Act 1968, this is where D dishonestly appropriates property belinging to another with the intention of permenantly depriving the victim of it. The Actus Reus (AR) of theft is explained in sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Theft Act 1968 and s3 states that appropriation means any assumption of the owners rights, this is illustrated in Morris and can be seen in the scenario when D took the £50 and the bag of clothes, in taking them D assumed the rights of the owner, this amounts to appropration under s3. s4 states that the afformentioned appropriation must be of property, property under s4 is defined as money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action or intangiable property, this defintion of property is very wide as seen in Kelly and Lindsay and cleary the £50 comes under money and the clothes are likely to come under personal property. s5 of the Theft Act states that the property is regarded as belonging to the person who has possession or control of it, or has proprietary rights or interest, this is illustrated by Turner. In the scenario the money D takes clearly belongs to the Victim (V) but, the ownership of the clothes could be debated as V had decided to throw them out, however, in Woodman, it was decided that as long as V was in possession or control of the property it belonged to them, in the scenario the clothes are in V's house and she hasnt yet thrown them out, meaning she is in control of them and they belong to her. This also means that D satisfies the AR of theft. The Mens Rea (MR) for theft comes under s2 and s6 of the Theft Act 1968, s2 states that D must be dishonest, this is decided by the two part 'Ghosh test' brought about in Ghosh (1982), first its decided
Open Document