Theft Acts and Law - Math Problem Example

Theft Acts and Law 2005 Handling of Stolen Goods Tracey bought the one-day train travel card from a stranger, Joe Mack, for £2 although the ticket price was £4.70 without being certain that it was a stolen item, which was quite possible given the fact that the seller offered it at an over 50% discount. If the original ticket purchaser had reported the loss of ticket to the police along with the ticket number, Tracey would have been caught when she used it to travel to the student hall. There would have been no evidence against Joe Mack since he had not used the card and there was no proof of his handling it. Tracey could have been charged under Section 22(1) of the Theft Act of 1968 for “handling stolen property”. It is an arrestable offense if “a person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods I) he dishonestly receives the goods, or ii) dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realization, by or for the benefit of the other person, or if he arranges to do so” (police-information-co.uk). However, Tracey could have pleaded that although she should have had a suspicion that the travel card was stolen, she could not have been certain that it was. According to law, she cannot be convicted unless it is proved that she knows for certain. In the case R vs Hall (1985), the accused could not be convicted since he said “I cannot say I know for certain that these goods are stolen, but there can be no other reasonable conclusion in the light of all that I have heard and seen" (swarb.co.uk) In the case Adams, R v (1993) CA, the defendant bought some motorcycle parts in cash not knowing that these were stolen. He later notices that some of the numbers were drilled out and realized his mistake. According to Section 3(2) of the Theft Act of 1968, “where a person had received property for value in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring would, by reason of a defect in title, amount to theft.” Although mens rea existed, there was no actus reus (sixthformlaw.info) The defendant was found not guilty. Obtaining Money Transfer by Deception and Dishonestly Failing to Correct the Wrongful Credit Tracey accepted the envelope containing £200 from the Registrar even when she knew it was not meant for her since she never applied for the bursary. For the offence, Tracey, if convicted, could be liable for imprisonment for a term up to 10 years. According to law, it does not matter that Tracey had not asked for the money since she did not rectify the mistake of the Registrar and take steps to cancel the wrongful credit in her name. As per Section 15(A)-1 of Theft Act of 1968, “A person is guilty of an offence if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a money transfer for himself or another”. Section 15(A)-5 says that “A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years”. Under Section 24(A)-1c, of the Theft Act Amendment (1996), a person is guilty of the same offence as under Section 15(A) if he or she “dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled”. Tracey would find it difficult to plead that she had taken the money by mistake, for which she would be unlikely to be charged, because she was certain that she never applied for the bursary. In Gilks, R V (1972) CA, a bookmaker overpaid the defendant. Although the defendant realized the mistake, he kept the money. He told the jury, “bookmakers are a race apart”. The jury took cognizance of the fact that it is a social tendency that makes people disbelief in their own dishonesty and held the defendant guilty since he knew he was dishonest. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant realized his or her dishonesty (sixthformlaw.info). In another case, Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 1983) CA, a policewoman received an overpayment in her salary, which was credited to her bank account. Although the property was transferred under someone else’s mistake, the policewoman was obliged to rectify the mistake under Section 22 and was found guilty (sixthformlaw.info). Obtaining Property by Deception When Tracey picked up the book absent-mindedly and walked out of the shop, she could have been accused for shoplifting if she was caught. In case the shop went for a civil recovery case, Tracey could have been charged a fine even if she paid for the book or the shop owner could charge Tracey under Section 11 “for removal of article from a place open to the public”. According to Theft Act of 1968, “A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property". However, since Tracey did not pay up, on her classmate, Leo Capri’s instigation, the shop could proceed a criminal case under Section 3 of Theft Act of 1968, under which “making off without payment” is an offense. Tracey could have been sentenced for compensation, introduced under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, or fined, as the court found fit. Although Tracy may not have stolen the book on intention, she still guilty of the offence of gaining pecuniary advantage by deception since Section 15(4) of the Theft Act of 1968 says “For the purposes of this section 'deception' means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person”. However, the term ‘deception’ is vague. Tracey can plead that she did not mean to deceive when she picked up the book from the shelf. In the case of Ray (1974) AC 370 House of Lords, Ray and four other men ate at a Chinese restaurant and made off without paying (BBC). He was charged under Section 16(2)a, which has now been repealed since defining service for the purpose of deception is difficult. However, Ray pleaded that he did not intend to deceive when he ordered the food. He could be convicted only after the intervention of the House of Lords. Although Section 16(2)a has been repealed, the problem with defining deception remains in Section 15 of Theft Act of 1968. Section 3 of Theft Act 1978, clarifies the issue, saying that anyone is guilty of an offence if he or she makes off without payment “... knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or services done is required or expected from him, makes off without having paid... with intent to avoid payment...” Tracey once more “made off without payment” from the café when she realized that she did not have the money to pay for her coffee after Leo Capri stole her bag. She had not intended to be dishonest when she ordered the coffee. She could have been charged under Section 3 of Theft Act of 1968. Leo Capri could certainly be charged under Section 3 of Theft Act 1978 and Section 15(4) of Theft Act 1968 since he deceived Tracey to believe that he is a friend and stole her bag. Tracy could claim damages from Leo Capri not only for her bag and the contents but for the claims against her as well by the café and Madame Starski since these were directly the result of Leo Capri’s deception. Moreover, Tracey could also plead that she had intended to return the book to the shop but did not do so under the instigation of Leo Capri. An example of the test of the case to prove dishonesty is (R v Ghosh 75 CR App R 154), (Archbold 21-24). The jury will consider whether the action was dishonest according to standards of honest people and wthether the accused realized that it was a dishonest act. If the answer to both the questions are in the negative, the prosecution will fail (The Crown Prosecution Service). In the first case when Tracey made off without paying for the book and could have been charged for obtaining property by deception, she could plead that she did not realize that her act was dishonest. But, in the second case, when she sneaked out of the café, she would not be able to do so. Most likely, the jury would find her guilty. Borrowing of Property without Permission Tracy borrowed Madame Starski’s book without her knowledge but on the assumption that she would not have any objection. She also left a note for her accordingly. Although Madame Starski could file a case against her under Theft Act of 1978, whereby “a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. However, the person’s act would be considered ‘dishonest’ only “if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it” (swarb.co.uk). Tracey could plead that she believed Madame Starski would not object to her taking the book when she knew it. Since she had left a note for Madame Starski, it was proof that she did not intend to be dishonest. However, since Tracey could not return the book, after Leo Capri stole her bag, Madame Starki could charge her for stealing under Section 3 of Theft Act of 1978 and claim compensation since she could not submit her paper to the journal in time, thereby losing the opportunity to earn a fee of £50. In the case Holden, R v (1991) CA, the defendant took tyres from his former employer on the assumption that the latter would not object. The jury found the defendant not guilty since he believed that he would have the consent for obtaining the property. Similarly, Tracey believed that she would have Madame Starski’s consent for taking the book. The intention to steal cannot be established in this case. Works Cited Theft (Amendment) Act, 1996, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996062.htm#1 http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexeng.html#H BBC Home Page, Section 16(2)(a) of the '1968 Theft Act' (England and Wales), 2001 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A580312 http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1968TheftAct.shtml The Crown Prosecution Service, http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section8/chapter_a.html#30 http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod5/cases_property_theft.htm#Ghosh,%20R%20v%20[1982]%20CA Read More