The sample paper on R V Velumyl familiarizes the reader with the topic-related facts, theories and approaches. Scroll down to read the entire paper.
The basic definition of ‘theft’ is contained in subdivision 1 ( 1 ) of the Theft Act 1968. This states that:
“A individual is guilty of larceny if he venally appropriates belongings belonging to another with the purpose of for good striping the other of it ”
There are two elements to the offense of larceny. The first is actus reus, which includes appropriation, the definition of belongings, and the fact that the belongings belongs to another.
The work forces rea component of the offense can be found in the inquiry of dishonesty, and the purpose to for good strip another individual of the belongings.
Furthermore, under s7 of the Theft Act 1968 as substituted by s26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, larceny is punishable with a term of imprisonment non transcending 7 old ages.
The different elements of what constitutes larceny are found in ulterior subdivisions of the Act, and in the instances considered by the tribunals.
First, looking at the instance of Bertie, a individual can merely be convicted of larceny where they have appropriated “something organizing a portion of the land” as defined in subdivisions 4 ( 2 ) ( B ) and 4 ( 2 ) ( hundred ) of the Theft Act 1968.
The inquiry of the extent to which workss constitute belongings for the intents of larceny is provided for by s4 ( 3 ) of the Theft Act, which states:
‘A individual who picks mushrooms turning wild on any land… does non ( although non in ownership of the land ) steal what he picks, unless he does it for wages or for sale or other commercial intent.
For intents of this subdivision “ mushroom ” includes any fungus, and “ works ” includes any bush or tree. ‘
Therefore a individual who picks mushrooms by traveling onto another’s land is non guilty of larceny, nevertheless this is merely where it is non done for wages or sale or any other commercial intent.
In this instance we are told that Bertie is doing soup and selling it in his cafe which may be grounds of him doing net income from them, and hence Bertie may be guilty of larceny.
However Professor Smith argues that little stray instances of picking mushrooms may non be a ‘commercial purpose’ He suggests that the diction of the sub subdivision implies that gross revenues must be commercial, and merely if a individual were to do a concern out of covering with the mushrooms would this sub subdivision non be available to him. [ 1 ]
Bertie’s instance will therefore bend on whether the tribunal decides to specify soup devising in a cafe as a commercial endeavor, which may in bend depend on how frequently Bertie is doing said soup.
Alison’s instance is rather different, as she takes sachets of sugar from Bertie ‘s cafe and topographic points them in her pocketbook. Appropriation is defined under s3 ( 1 ) of the Theft Act 1968. It states that
“Any premise by a individual of the rights of an proprietor sums to an appropriation”
In R V MacPherson ( 1973 ) RTR 157 the plaintiff in error concealed two bottles of whisky in her bag and non in the basket provided. It was held that this was an unauthorized act amounting to appropriation ; hence if Alison took the sugar without mandate I would reason that she has appropriated it. [ 2 ]
Second we know she took belongings ( the sugar ) , and we are besides told that it belonged to another ( Bertie ) . Therefore she has fulfilled all the standards for the actus reus.
A strong belief in this instance hence relies on set uping work forces rea, and I would reason that she had purpose to for good deprive Bertie of the sugar, as we are told that she is taking it place as she has run out.
However it is non clear as to whether or non she is being dishonest. S2 of the Theft Act 1968 provinces that appropriation can non be regarded as dishonest where a individual believes they have a right in jurisprudence to strip the other of it ; where they believe they would hold the others consent ; and where they believe that the individual to whom the belongings belongs can non be discovered by taking sensible stairss.
From the facts given we can non state if any of these apply to Alison, but if she can non avail herself of s2 ( 1 ) , and where there is some argument as to whether or non her actions were dishonest, the affair should be left to the jury who should use the criterion of ordinary decent people
The Court of Appeal in R V Ghosh [ 1982 ] 2 All ER 689 held that:
“A jury must make up one’s mind whether harmonizing to the ordinary criterions of sensible and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was non dishonorable by those criterions, that is the terminal of the affair. If it was dishonest by those criterions, so the jury must see whether the suspect himself realised that what he was making was by those criterions dishonest.”
Sing the facts of the instance I find it difficult to believe that a jury would convict her for stealing packages of sugar.
In Debbie’s instance we are told that she takes ?10 from the boulder clay in order to pay for a haircut, which is so repaid subsequently that afternoon after she goes to the bank. It is clear that on the facts given all the elements of actus reus exist, as she has appropriated ten lbs that belong to Bertie
However under the Theft Act 1968 a individual can merely be convicted if there is an purpose to for good strip.
In R V Velumyl ( 1989 ) CRIM LR 299 the suspect took hard currency from the safe of his employer meaning to refund it subsequently. He was convicted of larceny and his entreaty was dismissed. The Court of Appeal stated that returning objects of similar value may impact the issue of dishonesty but the tribunal had established the purpose to for good strip the proprietor of the original object ( the currency ) taken.
Furthermore under the Theft Act purpose is established if the purpose is to ‘treat the thing as 1s ain, and dispose of it irrespective of the others rights.”
Following these statements we could postulate that although she returned the money, she could be convicted of larceny as she had treated the money she had taken from the boulder clay as her ain regardless of the rights of Bertie.
However under S. 6 ( 1 ) of the Theft Act, purpose is established in instances of adoption or loaning belongings if making so “is for a period and in fortunes doing it tantamount to an outright pickings or disposal”
In R V Lloyd, Bhuee & A ; Ali ( 1985 ) 3 WLR 30 CA, a movie projectionist removed movies from the film with a position to doing pirate transcripts. The movies were taken and held for a figure of hours before being returned. On entreaty they were found non guilty of larceny, as there was no alteration in the province of the belongings borrowed, in that movies could be shown once more, and the value of the movies had non been diminished.
Lord Lane stated that:
“a adoption is ne’er plenty to represent the necessary guilty head unless the purpose is to return the ‘thing’ in such a changed province that it can genuinely be said that all its goodness or virtuousness has gone” [ 3 ]
I would reason that this would use to Debbie as although the 10 lb note may non be the same one she took, it is of the same value, and hence retained it’s “goodness or virtue”
Furthermore depending on Debbie ‘s relationship with Bertie, she may be able to trust on s2 1 ( B ) and argue that she appropriated the belongings in the belief that he would hold given his consent. If this did non use so the trial would fall to the jury who would hold to make up one’s mind if her behavior was dishonest harmonizing to the ordinary criterions of sensible and honorable people. [ 4 ]
In this instance Debbie, the waitress in the cafe , who besides told him that he would non hold to pay for it, has given Charlie nutrient. However, a gift does non needfully intend that there can non be appropriation.
In R V Hinks ( 2000 ) 3 WLR 1590 the House of Lords stated that appropriation is a impersonal construct and therefore a individual could allow belongings belonging to another even though the other individual had made an indefeasible gift of it.
However in order for a instance against Charlie to be successful, he would hold to be found dishonest, and I would reason that on the facts of the instance, there was no coercion or misrepresentation on the portion of Charlie, therefore strong belief would non be possible.
Glazebrook, D “Blackstone’s Statutes on Criminal Law” ( 2006 ) OUP
Ormerod, D “Smith and Hogan: Condemnable Law” ( 2005 ) LexisNexis UK 11Thursdayerectile dysfunction
Smith, JC “The Law of theft” ( 1989 ) 6th edn p55