Theft Act 1970 Essay
Denise may have committed the offence robbery.
Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 provides that (copy statue?) Robbery is theft with an aggravating factor, and from the case Forrester, Forrester [1992] Crim LR 793 (CA) , to prove robbery, all elements of the offence theft must be proven. There are in total five elements that constitute theft. The first three elements is the Actus Reus while the rest are Men Rea.
The first stage we look at is the appropriation, which is from section 3 of the Theft Act 1968. Appropriation is defined as assuming the right of the owner. In the case, Denise snatches Victoria’s purse and phone. She assumes the right of possession by the time she mugs Victoria’s property.
The second stage we look at is property, which is from section 4 of the Theft Act 1968. From the act, property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other …show more content…
The mixture of statue and common law defines it. From the statue, Section 2 (1) states three situations in which is not dishonest. Applying in the case, at first, if Denise appropriates the property but she has in law no rights to deprive the property. Secondly, Denise would not have the other’s consent if the other knew, Sally did resist to tell Denise Victoria’s daily routine. Lastly, Denise appropriates property belongs to Victoria and can be discovered. Denise does not fall within s2 (1), and dishonesty is an issue, Ghosh test R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110 from the common law applies. Ghosh test contains both an objective and a subjective question directed to the jury to answer. As dishonesty is a question of fact for the jury, R v Feely (1973) QB 530 different juries will conclude differently. For Denise in the case, the jury is more likely to regard her as dishonest. (There are exceptional cases like R v Small and R v Holden, the question of dishonest must left to the jury to decide R v
Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 provides that (copy statue?) Robbery is theft with an aggravating factor, and from the case Forrester, Forrester [1992] Crim LR 793 (CA) , to prove robbery, all elements of the offence theft must be proven. There are in total five elements that constitute theft. The first three elements is the Actus Reus while the rest are Men Rea.
The first stage we look at is the appropriation, which is from section 3 of the Theft Act 1968. Appropriation is defined as assuming the right of the owner. In the case, Denise snatches Victoria’s purse and phone. She assumes the right of possession by the time she mugs Victoria’s property.
The second stage we look at is property, which is from section 4 of the Theft Act 1968. From the act, property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other …show more content…
The mixture of statue and common law defines it. From the statue, Section 2 (1) states three situations in which is not dishonest. Applying in the case, at first, if Denise appropriates the property but she has in law no rights to deprive the property. Secondly, Denise would not have the other’s consent if the other knew, Sally did resist to tell Denise Victoria’s daily routine. Lastly, Denise appropriates property belongs to Victoria and can be discovered. Denise does not fall within s2 (1), and dishonesty is an issue, Ghosh test R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110 from the common law applies. Ghosh test contains both an objective and a subjective question directed to the jury to answer. As dishonesty is a question of fact for the jury, R v Feely (1973) QB 530 different juries will conclude differently. For Denise in the case, the jury is more likely to regard her as dishonest. (There are exceptional cases like R v Small and R v Holden, the question of dishonest must left to the jury to decide R v