Crosswords0 min ago
what offence is committed ?
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
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hammfred. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
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.
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.
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://
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://
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.
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.
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.
1 to 20 of 20
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|