Property Offence - Assignment Example

PROPERTY OFFENCE by The of the The of the School The and where it is located The Date Property Offences Question 1 a) Petty theft When Fred changed the price tag on the shirt, he became a suspect in a petty theft or shoplifting accusation. According to the U.K law, any actions that one may take to avoid paying the full purchase price on an item could make them guilty of shoplifting. This includes acts such as altering price tags, changing price tags between items, and swapping the goods in containers that have different prices. An attempt or intent to pay less than you should have paid excluding a cashier’s mistake can result in a shoplifting charge. The charges may be treated as a petty theft case, which falls in section 22 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 on the mode of trial in a particular case (Dabbah 2004, p. 8). In this particular case, Fred sees a 50 pound shirt in a shop and swaps the price tag for another one marked 30. By doing so, Fred intentionally pays less for the shirt. This triggers the men rea precedent and the fraudulent act is then translated to theft or shoplifting since the true value of the item is not represented in its buying price. As a misdemeanor, the act falls under "summary offence” case. It is then referred to section 22 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Dabbah 2004, p. 8). Fred is charged with petty theft charges due to his offence. b) Theft (Taking without Owner’s Consent) In this case, Andrew and Fred share a house, however, when Andrew takes Fred’s football club season ticket from his room, he violates the ‘Taking without Owner’s Consent’ law under the actus reus precedent. Subsection 5 and 6 of the UK legislation Theft Act of 1968 clearly states that an individual will be guilty of a theft charge, if the person lacks the permission of the proprietor or other official authority. (Cunningham 2008, p. 71). It is later documented that Andrew returned the ticket three months later. The theft cases may not be satisfactory to the jury since the item was returned to the owner while still valid. c) Aggravated Burglary When Su decides to steal vodka from a shop with the use of a gun, he is subject to an aggravated burglary charge due to intent to use a deadly weapon hence triggering the men rea precedent. The UK legislation Theft Act of 1968 under section 10 states that an individual is accused of aggravated theft if he does any larceny and at the time he or she has any weapon or artificial firearm”. The fact that she pulls the gun outside the shop but returns it to her pocket still remains mute. The act further states that for this purpose a firearm or an imitation means anything that has the form of being a weapon whether able to being cleared or not. The charges can be set as guilty since the crime of getting the vodka unlawfully still takes place at the end of it all and the case will on conviction and accusation be apt to imprisonment for life under the actus reus precedent (Gadd, Karstedt, and Messner. 2012). d) Robbery When Paul enters a post office and points a gun at George, then subsequently, the latter is subjected to force hence triggering the men rea precedent. In reference to subsection c of this paper, Paul intentionally pulls a gun at George and this is no longer aggravated burglary since an individual’s life is in danger immediately after the burglary takes place. This is evident when George gives all the money in the till to Paul who leaves the shop as requested. The UK legislation Theft Act of 1968 under section eight (8) states that an individual is guilty of burglary if he unlawfully takes, and directly before or at the period of doing so by using force on any individual or puts or pursues to put any individual in panic (Cassese 2011, p. 17). e) Burglary. When Mary enters Paul’s home without permission she becomes a trespasser with the objective to steal. This fact no longer makes it a common theft case. The fact that she does so holding a knife as a weapon to cause harm or instil fear may change the situation to robbery under the men rea precedent but Paul or any other individual is not in the premises hence a jury might not call for a robbery case. The UK legislation Theft Act of 1968 under section nine (9) states that an individual is guilty of robbery if he, or in this case she, enters any house or a constituent of a structure as an intruder and with resolve to do any form of theft (Easton & Piper. 2012, p. 23). Question 2 Blackmail Blackmail is the term used in the sense of identification of a statutory offence in the United States of England and Wales, America, Australia, Northern Ireland, and Victoria. The term was initially coined in England regarding payments rendered by settlers in the Counties of England bordering Scotland to chieftains and the like in the Scottish Lowlands in exchange for protection from Scottish thieves and marauders into England (Burrows 2009, P. 34). By definition, ‘Blackmail’ is an action, regularly a crime, comprising of unwarranted threats to manipulate an advantage or cause harm to another in the exception of if a demand is met. Its manipulation comprises of threats of bodily injury, threat of illegal prosecution or threats for the resolutions of taking an individuals property. The UK legislation Theft Act of 1968 under section twenty-one (21) states that an individual is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause harm to another, makes any unwarranted demand with menaces. It further states that, for this purpose, a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the notion that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand, and that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. A person guilty of blackmail will on conviction and accusation be answerable to imprisonment for a period not beyond fourteen years. For example, in the example of R v Warhurst and Collister of 1955 (39 Cr App R 100), two police officers were the defendants. They intimated the complainant that he would be prosecuted for an offence. They had arranged for a meeting, and in the convention the police officers had asked whether he had something for him (implying a £5 bribe), which the complainant had to provide to them. In this case, blackmail had occurred and the defendants were convicted. They had appealed that they did not make any demand. However under the law, such demands can be expressed or implied, and hence they were Upheld for the Crime. Handling Stolen Goods Handling stolen properties is the term of a statutory crime in Northern Ireland, England, and Wales. The crime happens subsequent to a theft or an offence or a person who aids the thief to recognize the worth of the stolen property finalizes other deceitful gaining. It substitutes the felony of accepting stolen property under section 33 of the Larceny Act 1916. The UK legislation Theft Act of 1968 under section twenty-two (22) states a person handles stolen goods if knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the advantage of another individual, or if he arranges to do so. An individual guilty of handling stolen property will on conviction on accusation be accountable to imprisonment for a period not beyond fourteen years (Nafziger & Paterson 2014, p. 41). Examples of a case of handling stolen goods Robert operates a shop where he buys and resells second-hand household items. One day, Mrs. Nate came to his shop and offered to sell a used gas cooker and a television set to Robert. Mrs. Nate confided with Robert that she had stolen the item from one of her neighbours. After agreeing on the price, Robert pays for the goods and he then stocked them in his shop. After a few days, Robert was arrested and convicted of handling stolen goods. Fraud Answer to Question 3 (a) This type of fraud occurs on the Internet online advertising when a computer program or an automated script imitates a genuine internet user to click on an advert, for the intention of generating a pay demand without having an authentic interest in the target of the link. (b) Requirements of the Fraud Act of 2006 Summary The legislation Fraud Act 2006 defines Fraud as a type of criminal activity, defined as abuse of position, or false representation, or prejudicing someones rights for personal gain. The general criminal offence of fraud can include 1. Deception whereby someone knowingly makes a false representation 2. When an individual fails to disclose information 3. When an individual abuses a position. Fraud Due to False Representation Subsection two of the fraud act of 2006 defines Fraud by false representation as a fraudulent offence when a person dishonestly makes a false representation, and intends, by making the representation to make an advantage for himself or another, or to do harm to another or to uncover another to a threat of harm. The act states that a representation is false if it is untrue or misleading, and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. “Representation” means any representation as to a fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of the person making the representation, or any other person. An example is giving a credit card to the shopkeeper, with the credit card being stolen, implying authority to use the card, which is untrue. Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information Subsection three of the fraud act of 2006 defines the phenomenon as a fraudulent offence when a person deceitfully fails to reveal to another person’s facts, which he is in a legal responsible to relate. It further states that the offence is more evident when the individuals intentions, by failing to disclose the information is to make an advantage for himself or another, or to do harm to another or to uncover another to a peril of harm. A good example of fraud by failing to disclose information is exhibited when a person suffering from a terminal disease fails to disclose the same when applying for a life assurance cover Fraud by Abuse of Position Subsection four of the fraud act of 2006 defines Fraud by Abuse of Position as a fraudulent offence when a person holding a spot, in which he is probably to protect, or not to act against, the financial welfares of others deceitfully abuses that post, and plans, by means of the abuse to make a profit for himself or another. An example of such a case is, an individual can be charged by Fraud and Abuse of Position suit when he or she holds the responsibilities of hiring out government tractors and other farm machines to needy farmers yet he does so by getting financial gain from the intended parties. Question Four (a) A summary of the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 is an Act that revised the common law felony Act of England and Wales as to crimes of damage to belongings, and to revoke or amend certain enactments relating to such offenses and for connected purposes (Dabbah 2004, p. 56). (b) The difference is between Simple Criminal Damage subsection 1 and Aggravated Criminal Damage subsection 2 and what is meant by Arson subsection 3 The Criminal Damage Act 1971 differentiates this subsection by deflation by intent and situation. Subsection 1 defines ‘Destroying or damaging property’ as a crime committed when an individual who devoid of lawful justification destroys or damages any belongings belonging to another. This would be either through intent or being reckless as to whether any such belongings would be damaged. Subsection 2 successfully defined the act as a crime when an individual who without lawful justification threatens an intended part by proposing threats of harm carried out to damage any assets belonging to the intended party or a third person. The act further states that it is a felony to destroy or damage personal property in a method, which is likely to endanger the life of an intended part or third person. Finally, subsection 3 defined the act as an offense when the actions of subsection 1 and 2 are committed and has the involvement of fire in the act (DABBAH. 2004). b) The section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the lawful excuse according to which there are two sets of instances to determine a lawful excuse in relation to an act of criminal damage. One subsection of this section believes in consent, and another subsection follows that the property was immediately needed to be protected. Based on the third subsection of this section, these two subsections are subjective in their approach depending on the belief of the defendant. The belief may not be justifiable if it is an honest belief. A drunken belief, which may be based on mistakes, is also considered as sufficient under this law. References Burrows, S., 2009. Blackmail, scandal and revolution: Londons French libellistes, 1758-92. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Cassese, A., 2011. International criminal law: Cases and commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crime and courts act 2013. (2013). London: Stationery Office. Cunningham, S., 2008. Driving offences: Law, policy and practice. Aldershot (Hampshire: Ashgate. Dabbah, M. M., 2004. EC and UK competition law: commentary, cases and materials. Cambridge[etc.], Cambridge University Press. Easton, S. M., & Piper, C., 2012. Sentencing and punishment: the quest for justice. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Gadd, D., Karstedt, S., & Messner, S. F., 2012. The Sage handbook of criminological research methods. London: Sage. Nafziger, J. A. R., & Paterson, R. K. (2014). Handbook on the law of cultural heritage and international trade. Read More