law

Página 1

The defendant will be charged with theft under s.1 of the theft act 1968. The very first element in which needs to be proven is the rule of Appropriation. This is according to s.3 expanding on the belief "any assumption of the right of the owner". George assumed the rights of Freda's chocolates and decided to take the v's rights away by consuming them. It has also been held to be irrelevant if the victim has connected to the appropriation seen in the case of R V Hinks, despite going beyond the owners content of entering the living room. The next element is property under s.4. It includes money and all property both real or personal, including things in action. The box of chocolates were personal property of Freda's. The property has to also belong to another under s.5. Property is regarded when it belongs to another when the victim has custody, control or any proprietary right. Freda has control to whom she gives her chocolates to being the sole owner of the chocolates aswell as having the proprietary right due to them belonging in her possession. The first element of the mens rea is dishonesty s.2. The D is not dishonest if he believed he had a right in the law or if the owner would have given their consent or if the owner cannot be discovered. D is dishonest due to Freda (the owner) denying the consent of George entering the living room to access the property, no permission to enter the living room limits the access available to property within that area. The owner of the property is discovered to D due to already being in the owners home gives the indication the owner of the property is already assumed by D. D can also be dishonest if he intends to pay for the property, D intended to replace the chocolates despite eating them is irrelevant. The test of R v Gosh sets out the test for dishonesty. The test assumes whether the action was dishonest according to the standards of the ordinary man according to the jury . A ordinary man under specific instructions is expected to carry them out without the owners consent. Also, whether the D realised what he was doing was dishonest by those standards. D must have foreseen he broke the rules of following instructions as he proceeded to do it anyway. Finally, under s.6 states intention to permanently deprive is proven when D treats the property to dispose of regardless of the owners rights (R v Velumyl). D chose to permanently deprive the property by opening the chocolates and eating them, property can no longer be identified or replaced.

D would be charged with Burglary under section 9 (1) (b) of the theft act 1968. The first element in need of proving is entry, the jury must decide whether D made an "effective and substantial entry", R v Ryan. D made a substantial and effective entry, by entering Freda's home with permission. D entered the house and in doing his jobs which required him to enter the house. The next element is that it needs to be a building or part of a building (R v Walkington. This means that it needs to have some permanence (B and S v Leatherly), despite D having permission in the house, D wasn't permitted to be in a specific part of the building i.e. the living room. The D must be proven to be a trespasser. If he has permission, D is not a trespasser (R v Collins), but if D goes beyond permission then D and become a trespasser. D had permission to enter the building under Freda's wishes however, D went beyond the permission he was permitted by entering the living room where he wasnt allowed to enter, he proceeded to anyway. By D entering a space where he wasn't allowed to enter D has become a trespasser. Under section 9 (1) (b), D appeared to have the intention when already being in the building. D's original intention upon entering was to water the plants in Freda's kitchen, up until finishing his jobs he proceeded to enter without permission. The final element that needs to be proven is that the D must know or be reckless as to whether he is a trespasser. The D must know he was a trespasser before entering the living room, due to Freda's verbal warning. He knew the risk by entering it was against the victim's obligation, D foresaw the risk of going against the V's wishes but proceeded to do it regardless of the V's rights.