what offence is committed ?

[hammfred]

Andrew and Fred share a house. Andrew takes Fred’s football club season ticket from his room and returns the ticket three months later when only one match remains

[bednobs]

What do YOU think hammfred?

[jackthehat]

Strictly speaking, it is Theft.

[dotty.]

did fred actually play for the club? is this a joke?

[sadielady]

Theft

[furrypusscat]

No offence if he was given permission to take it. Theft if no permission given. Also possibly fraud if Andrew was purporting to be Fred.

[jno]

it doesn't stop being theft just because you've returned the thing you stole.

[MASS1961]

Is this a serious 1st question hammfred?

Obviously, without permission = theft

or are you having a laugh?

[chrissa1]

The crime of idiocy by Fred for not noticing his ticket's gone.

[FredPuli43]

This must be homework. The answer is in the books. Is furtum usus, a crime under Roman law and in jurisdictions whose law is derived from it, a crime in English law? How is 'intent permanently to deprive' defined in English law ? Is there a deception in the use of the ticket? You do the rest..

[sir.prize]

I wonder if he's a Sheffield Wednesday fan . . . . An Owl!

[Mick-Talbot]

ooooooh ... nice one sir p


but you shouldn't have revealed why a shef wednesday fan .... ruined it a bit.

[NOX]

Theft is the intention to PERMANENTLY deprive someone of their property, I would say possible fraud if he was pretending to be the person whose ticket it was if they are non transferable and possibly none if it is.

[jackthehat]

Andrew's taking of the season ticket 'permanently' deprived Fred of the ability to attend the matches occurring during the period it was taken.

As I said, strictly speaking it IS theft.........

However, the scenario often features as part of a Law Course and the requirement is to argue why it may, and may not be, classed as Theft.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

Can you TWOC a limited usage thing?

[IggyB]

This is a typical law home work typed question. It is asking you to consider the definition of theft e.g.

Section 1(1) Theft Act 1968 'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'

On first reading therefore your example with the season ticket may not seem to constitute theft as Andrew returned the item (the ticket) so clearly didn’t mean to permanently deprive Fred of the item taken. However in order to properly answer the question set you need to consider the elements of the offence as defined within section 2 – 6 of the Act e.g. the actus reus and mens rea of the offence.

The actus reus of theft is the appropriation of property belonging to another. Andrew has satisfied this element by taking (appropriating) property (the ticket) belong to another (Fred). The mens rea of theft is acting dishonestly and with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it (the property that is). It is these element that this question is looking for you to expand upon, particularly the issue of permanently depriving the other.

S61(1) with the intention of permanently depriving the other it
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights

In this question Andrew has taken the ticket but then returned it however the returned ticket has now lost its value it would therefore be argued that he had treated the property of his own and disposed of the value (used it to see the games). Therefore thanks to S6(1) Andrew has satisfied the mens rea and actus reas of the offence and is guilty of theft.

This shouldn’t be seen as a full answer but I hope helps is some way - you'll probably find more in the text book but the Act is handy to check out as well http://www.legislatio...kpga/1968/60/contents

[eyethenkyew]

Burglary is the answer.

[jno]

Nox, doesn't the "intention" relate to the time when the thing was taken? The fact that he subsequently returned it doesn't necessarily mean that he was planning to do so when he first took it.

In effect, if he'd returned it when the season was over, he'd be returning a piece of card; he wouldn't be returning the right of entry to the games, which is actually what was stolen. Returning it with one match to go would reduce pro rata the value of what was stolen; it wouldn't mean there was no theft.

A similar event might involve taking some non-rechargeable batteries and returning them when they're almost run down.

[FredPuli43]

You can amusingly consider having an article (the card) for use in cheat. And how about fraud ? Hasn't one made a representation, in using the card, that he is the person named on it or entitled to use it, and would, or should, the club's employee not refuse him admission if the club knew the truth? And does he not know or believe that? And , on that basis, what kind of loss or gain is occasioned? There are cases on all these matters. Your job is to find them.

[naomi24]

Theft. Whether he eventually returned it or not, it's still theft. He took it without the owner's permission.

[Mick-Talbot]

He is a she.