Analysis of The Theft Act 1968 Cases - Assignment Example

Theft Act Student name: Student number: Tutor: Date: 1. John and Peter are tenants of a house. The central issue is whether Peter and John’s offence amounts to theft as set out by Section 1(1) of Theft Act 1968 (TA). As set out in Section 1(1) of Theft Act 1968, an individual is considered guilty of theft when he deceitfully appropriates a property that belongs to another person with the hope of permanently depriving the owner of its possession1. In this respect, the decisive element to determine whether John and Peter are thieves is that of ‘appropriation.’ Section 3(1) of the Theft Act (1968) specifies that any act by an individual to assume the rights of the original owner be considered an appropriation. This may include where the defendant has come by the property without stealing it in order to assume the rights of ownership2. As further set out by Section 1(2) of the Theft Act 1968, it doesn't matter whether the defendant makes an appropriation with a view of gaining, or using it for personal benefit.” 3 John and Peter (both tenants) are short of money. John digs up the front lawn and sells it to buy food. John has dishonestly appropriated the front lawn while intending to permanently deprive his landlord of its ownership. Peter also sells the fireplace from the spare bedroom, which he uses to buy food. In the same case as John, Peter has dishonestly appropriated the fireplace while intending to permanently deprive his landlord of its ownership4. Appropriation is therefore wide in its context, and includes appropriating ownership of a landlord’s property to sell for personal gain. Such facts were held in the case DPP v Gomez [1993]5, where facts regarding whether a defendant has to assume all the rights of the owner, and whether he merely assumes one of the rights, such as selling it. To further prove theft, both Mens Rea and Actus Rea has to be proved as shown in the case DPP v Gomez [1993]. Mens rea of theft is concerned with whether the act is dishonest or deceitful and whether the individual intended to permanently deprive. Actus reus of theft sets out various elements, such as appropriation, dishonest, intention of permanently depriving the owner of its possession, and whether the property belongs to someone else. In the case of Peter and John, both Mens Rea and Actus Rea are proved to exist6. In conclusion, since John and Peter are likely to be found guilty of theft, they are likely to be sentenced to seven years in prison. In the event that a person is found guilty of theft, Section 1(2) of the Act elaborates that the maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment. 2. Martin snatches a bag from a woman. The central issue in the case is whether Martin is guilty of robbery. Section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 stipulates that an individual would be found guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or during the action of stealing, uses force or attempts to put any person in fear of being subjected to force. Hence, in defining robbery, the elements of theft, threat and use of force have to exist7. As established in the cases R v Robinson [1977]8; R v Forrester [1992]9, the element of theft has to exist, where the victim is deprived of ownership of his property. Based on the facts provided by the case and the elements of Theft, as set out in the Theft Act, it could be argued that Martin could be found criminally liable of stealing the bag. This is since he had appropriated the possession of the women’s bag with the intention of permanently depriving the women of it, as held in the case R v Hale [1978]10. Use of force must also exist, as held in the case R v Dawson [1976]11, where it was determined that even very little force, such as snatching a handbag or nudging someone is required to justify use of force. Based on facts of the case, it is clear that Martin snatched the bag, an action that required use of force during the act of depriving the women possession of the bag. In the case R v Clouden [1987]12, a victim's bag was snatched by the defendant. The Court of Appeal concluded that the action of snatching a bag without the owner resisting amounted to the question of whether force was used. The Court held that the decision should be left to the jury. The Court held that the defendant was rightly convicted of robbery13. In conclusion, Martin could be found criminally liable of robbery. On indictment, he could be liable to imprisonment for life, or as deemed necessary by the court. As set out in section 8(2), an individual guilty of robbery shall, on conviction on indictment be held liable to life imprisonment. 3. Andy takes Fire extinguisher at the Preston Art Gallery. A critical issue is whether Andy is guilty of burglary. Still, it may be appropriate to consider whether Andy is guilty of burglary, as well as theft. To determine the elements of burglary, Section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 considers an individual to be guilty of burglary when the person enters a building or a section of a building as a trespasser with the purpose of committing theft. Section 9(1)(a) adds that once the person enters the building, he steals or attempts to steal something from the building. Although Andy has taken Fire extinguisher, he is not trespassing (since Preston Art Gallery is open to public) and therefore does not fulfil the requirements stipulated in section 9(1)(b). However, he could still be found guilty under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act for commission of the actus reus, by appropriating property belonging to another party14. Section 9 of the Act highlights two offences that need proof that a defendant can enter any building or a section of building as a trespasser. However, there has to be an additional determinant regarding the defendant’s intentions or the actions while inside the building. Hence, Section 9(1)(a) proposes that there has to be existence of stealing or inflicting unlawful damage. Section 9(1)(b) further sets out that there has to be proof that after the defendant entered the building, he stole a property. The issue of trespass therefore, remains difficult to determine15. At common law, however, Andy could be argued to have trespassed. As held in the case R v Jones & Smith [1976]16, trespass also exists in circumstances where the defendant acts in excess if permission granted to him. Since Andy takes the fire extinguisher, he has acted in excess of permission due to him. To conclude, Andy would be guilty of burglary. He may be liable to a 10-year imprisonment. Section 9(3)(b) specifies that an individual guilty of burglary is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years when the offence is committed in respect of a building or part of a building that is not a dwelling. 3. Ed takes a Goya painting at the Preston Art Gallery A critical issue is whether Ed is guilty burglary and theft. As established by, section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, an individual is guilty of burglary when he enters a building or a section of a building as a trespasser with purpose of committing theft. According to Section 9(1)(b), once in the building, the person steals or attempts to steal a property from the building17. Ed has taken Goya painting without permission, hence proving trespass. He has also appropriated ownership of the property, although without intention to permanently deprive the owner of it since he intends to return it after 10 years. However, Ed has acted dishonestly, and the property belongs to the Preston Art Gallery. These fulfil the elements of theft as set out under section 8 of the Act. At common law, however, Ed has trespassed as reflected in the case R v Jones & Smith [1976]18, since he takes the painting without permission. Ed has no necessary intention to ‘permanently deprive’ the owner of the painting. However, Ed had an intention to treat the painting as his. This amounts to theft. Such facts were held in the case of Lloyd, Bhuee and Ali 1985 by the Court of Appeal. In conclusion, Ed is therefore guilty of burglary and is liable to a 10-year imprisonment as set out by Section 9(3)(b) of the Theft Act 1968. References Journals Alex Steel, 'Taking Possession: The Defining Element Of Theft?' (2011) 32 Melbourne University Law Review 1030-1064 Natalie Owen and Christine Cooper, 'The Start of a Criminal Career: Does the Type of Debut Offence Predict Future Offending?’ Research Report 77 (2013) 21-24 Books Heith Copes, Lynne M. Vieraitis, Identity Thieves: Motives and Methods, (UPNE, 2012) 37 Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law Statutes 2012-2013, (Routledge, 2013) 40-51 Articles Crown Prosecution Service, 'Theft Act Offences,' (Crown Prosecution Service, 2014) 14 Jan 2014 Laura Butler, 'Analysis of Sentencing in Robbery,' Judicial Researchers’ Office (2013), 1-2 Louise Porter, 'Robbery' (Cambridge handbook of Forensic Psychology, 2010) 13 Jan 2015 Case Laws DPP v Gomez [1993] A.C. 442 R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56 R v Dawson [1976] Crim LR 692 R v Forrester [1992] Crim LR 793 R v Hale (1978) Cr App R 415 R v Robinson [1977] Crim LR 173 Read More