Theft Offences Essay
Theft - The Theft offence is defined under S1 of the ‘Theft act 1968’. Where it provides that if ‘A person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it,’ will be guilty of the offence. For this charge to be upheld, both the actus Reus and the mens rea have to be established.
Actus Reus - Beginning with the physical element of the crime, the actus Reus it is made up of 3 elements – ‘appropriates, property, belonging to another.’
Appropriation is defined in S3, ‘Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation.’ This includes coming across the property innocently or not without stealing it and treating the property how the owner would. Examples …show more content…
Therefore meaning if the other entire elements are present the defendant’s motive is not relevant. S2 provides 3 situations in which the defendant’s behaviour is not dishonest. If a genuine belief in one of the three below not guilty.
A) He has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself of a third person. b) He would have the consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstance of it. c) The person who the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Willing to pay – it doesn’t prevent dishonest conduct. ‘A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.’
The Ghosh Test (1982) – Leading case on dishonesty. Ghosh a doctor, (a locum consultant) at hospital, He claimed fees for operations he had not carried out. COA decided dishonestly has both objective and subjective element.
1. Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable & honest people? Objective
2. Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?
Actus Reus - Beginning with the physical element of the crime, the actus Reus it is made up of 3 elements – ‘appropriates, property, belonging to another.’
Appropriation is defined in S3, ‘Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation.’ This includes coming across the property innocently or not without stealing it and treating the property how the owner would. Examples …show more content…
Therefore meaning if the other entire elements are present the defendant’s motive is not relevant. S2 provides 3 situations in which the defendant’s behaviour is not dishonest. If a genuine belief in one of the three below not guilty.
A) He has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself of a third person. b) He would have the consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstance of it. c) The person who the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Willing to pay – it doesn’t prevent dishonest conduct. ‘A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.’
The Ghosh Test (1982) – Leading case on dishonesty. Ghosh a doctor, (a locum consultant) at hospital, He claimed fees for operations he had not carried out. COA decided dishonestly has both objective and subjective element.
1. Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable & honest people? Objective
2. Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?