January 2009 Law Ocr A2 Scenario Question
In the scenario the following property offences have arisen, these include theft and burglary. These offences come from the Theft Act 1968. In both of the offences the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Theft carries a maximum sentence of seven years and for burglary it is a maximum of fourteen years.
Susan may have committed three offences of theft and possible a burglary. Theft is defined in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, and the definition of theft is, ‘Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.’ In order for Susan to have committed a theft then she must have all of the elements. Firstly it would have to be proved that she did the theft ‘dishonestly’ under section 2(1)(a), if Susan had a genuine legal right to deprive the owner of the property, in this case Susan did not have the legal right to take the perfume, s.2(1)(b) if Susan believed that the person would have consented to her taking the perfume, in this case this is unlikely, s.2(1)(c), if Susan was unable to find the owner through taking reasonable steps, in this case the property had not been lost therefore this does not apply. As none of these apply, the Ghosh test is applied the first test is, was what Susan had done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? In the case of Susan this would not have been the case as most people would pay. Secondly, did Susan realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards? In this case as Susan was hiding the perfume, therefore Susan had taken the perfume dishonestly and has the first element of theft.
Secondly the prosecution would have to prove that Susan appropriated it. The definition of appropriation is defined in section 3, of the Theft Act, it is defined as ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’, this does not mean that all the owners’ rights has to be
Susan may have committed three offences of theft and possible a burglary. Theft is defined in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, and the definition of theft is, ‘Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.’ In order for Susan to have committed a theft then she must have all of the elements. Firstly it would have to be proved that she did the theft ‘dishonestly’ under section 2(1)(a), if Susan had a genuine legal right to deprive the owner of the property, in this case Susan did not have the legal right to take the perfume, s.2(1)(b) if Susan believed that the person would have consented to her taking the perfume, in this case this is unlikely, s.2(1)(c), if Susan was unable to find the owner through taking reasonable steps, in this case the property had not been lost therefore this does not apply. As none of these apply, the Ghosh test is applied the first test is, was what Susan had done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? In the case of Susan this would not have been the case as most people would pay. Secondly, did Susan realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards? In this case as Susan was hiding the perfume, therefore Susan had taken the perfume dishonestly and has the first element of theft.
Secondly the prosecution would have to prove that Susan appropriated it. The definition of appropriation is defined in section 3, of the Theft Act, it is defined as ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’, this does not mean that all the owners’ rights has to be