Carla in scenario two has taken the handbag when it clearly belonged to another person. This means that a person could be liable for theft of their own property if it is seen to be in the possession of another. This happened in R v Turner 1971. The defendant took his car in to a service station for repairs. When he went to pick it up he saw that the car was left outside with the key in, so he took the car without paying for the repairs.
The LAPD violated the 4th Amendment when they searched O.J’s house without a search warrant. People believed that they did this in order to take action immediately and plant evidence which would help convict O.J. Mark Fuhrman, the head detective at LAPD in charge of the investigation, was questioned about the planting of evidence at O.J’s residence, pleading the 5th Amendment. In other words, he refused to respond to the questions given to him and chose to exercise his constitutional right to not speak. As an addition to O.J’s defense, Simpson's attorneys questioned Fuhrman about his alleged prior use of racist terms.
Graham is liable for theft under the section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. Section 1(1) “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it ; and “thief” and “steal” shall be constructed accordingly.” Graham goes into the shop in Meadowhall, a local shopping store and takes two suits into the changing room. He then takes the price tag off of one of the suits and walks out wearing one suit and returning the other. Whilst he wears the other suit assuming the property without the consent of the store’s owner, therefore has no intention in paying for the property. This is an appropriation of Section 3(1) stating that : “Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.” In Morris (1983) case, the defendant was found guilty of theft when he had just switched the price labels from two items on the shelf in the supermarket and then took the lower priced item in his shopping basket.
After which, Boehm initiated criminal bastardy proceedings to enforce the outstanding child support payments. ISSUES: Was the plaintiff’s promise of forbearance from filing of bastardy proceedings against defendant sufficient consideration to uphold the contract? HOLDING: Yes. Forbearance from asserting a good faith legal claim can be valid consideration. Forbearance from asserting a legal claim known to be invalid is not valuable consideration.
Malik is a plaintiff at this point and if he decided to sue Daniel as a result of his negligence would be awarded in his favor. Daniel was fired by his boss assuming that Daniel had given Ruben alcohol, which was untrue. Daniel became a defendant at this point for wrongful firing without refutable evidence that Daniel had ultimately committed a crime. While walking to his vehicle Daniel is approached by Malik who pulls a concealed weapon in a public place became a defendant at this point because it is against the law. After feeling threatened Daniel pulls out his weapon which may have been concealed within his vehicle and shoots Malik.
So the defendant does not have to have the intention to commit an act or have any knowledge of the circumstances that makes an act a criminal offence. The second type of strict liability is a more common type, with this type of strict liability it is at least necessary for the defendant to have intended to commit the act, but the fact that the offence is one of strict liability means that the defendant need have no knowledge of the circumstances that make his act a criminal offence. An example which shows this is in the case of R V Prince (1875) within this case the defendant knew that the girl he took was in the possession of her father however he thought she was aged 18 and did not know that she was only 16. The result was that he was convicted because he had the intention to remove the girl from her father’s possession whether he assumed her age was 18 or something else. With this case we can clearly see that the mens rea was required for part of the actus reus and he had the necessary intentions.
The threats must be directed at the commission of a particular offence: In R v Coles  Crim LR 582, the defendant was charged with committing a number of robberies at building societies. At his trial he sought to adduce evidence that he had acted under duress. The basis for the defence was that he had owed money to money-lenders who had threatened him, his girlfriend, and their child with violence if the money was not repaid. The trial judge ruled that the facts did not give rise to the defence as the threats had not been directed at the commission of a particular offence, but
If the questions where am I underage drinking or similar to that then I would answer truthfully. But if it was a fact of I was underage drinking or using illegal narcotics and in truth I was I would probably lie. The reason being is that if the survey was not anonyms then it would basically being a written confession in my mind of hey I do use drugs that are deemed illegal. The next issue would have to be well what types of drugs are we talking are we speaking illegal over the counter prescriptions, and when we talk prescription are we talking abusing stealing some one elses what factors are involved. Criminal behavior would all be situational are we assuming that I’m a law abiding normal citizen or what.
Lak attended at the property harassed the tenants continuously, contrary to the terms of the order. So it can be said he is guilty of an offence. But the appellant case was that he went to collect the rent arrears. Prosecution should prove that Lak breached the ASBO according to criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt. The legal burden lies with the prosecution then the standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt.
The crime of identity theft is committed by fraudulent means to obtain financial resources from the person. The information below will include the types of identity theft, how it occurs, how large the growing problem is, and how to protect yourself from it. What is Identity Theft? Business & Money defines identity theft as: “Identity theft occurs when the personal identifying information of an individual is misappropriated and used in order to gain some advantage, usually financial, by deception (White, 2012).” Many people confuse regular fraud as being the same as identity theft, and that is not the case. In a fraud case, the criminal is not taking the identity of a certain person.