AQA LAW 04 22nd June 2012
Hi everyone, I have decided that I would create a thread for the upcoming Law 04 exam, please share tips and notes so that we can all hopefully do well in it. I will be adding some notes to the forum to help anyone with revision.
There may already be a thread, but hey the more the better.
There may already be a thread, but hey the more the better.
Scroll to see replies
Criminal Offences against Property
THEFT
Theft is defined in S1 of the Theft Act 1968. which states that "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Dishonestly (Part of the Mens Rea)
S2 There is no definition of what dishonestly actually means within the Theft Act. But if all elements of theft are present, then the defendants motive is not relevant. The Act however makes it clear that the 'appropriation' of property will not be regarded if
a) The defendant has a legal right to the property
b) The other person would have consented to the appropriation
c) The person to whom the property belongs to cannot be discovered when reasonable steps are taken to find them
The Ghosh Test
GHOSH (1982) Was a doctor acting as a locum consultant in hospital. He claimed fees for an operation which he did not carry out (Slippery B******). He said that he was not dishonest because he was owed the same amount by the hospital for consultation fees. The trial Judge directed the Jury that they must "APPLY THEIR OWN STANDARDS TO DECIDE IF WHAT GHOSH DID WAS DISHONEST. He was convicted and appealed against the conviction.
The Court of Appeal set out a 2 part test to be used in assessing the honesty or dishonesty of a defendant. The Ghosh test has both an OBJECTIVE element and a SUBJECTIVE element These are as follows.
1) Was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? (OBJECTIVE)
2) Did the defendant realise what he was doing was dishonest by those standards of reasonable and honest people ? (SUBJECTIVE)
The Ghosh test means that the Jury has to start with the OBJECTIVE test.
Was what was done dishonest according to ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?
If the act would not be regarded as being dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people then that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails (A BIG FAT F) The defendant is found NOT GUILTY (Lucky sod).
However if the jury decides that it was dishonest by those standards, the Jury must then decide if the defendant had known that it was dishonest by those standards. the second test is not completely subjective because the defendant is judged by his knowledge of what those ordinary standards were. This prevents the defendant from saying that, "although I knew ordinary people would regard my actions from being dishonest, I don't think your crappy standards would apply to me SIR with your barristers wig on. (DON'T PUT THAT PART IN THE EXAM PLEASE)
The Judge will use the Ghosh Test to direct the Jury only where there is an issue about dishonesty.
-------------------------- ----------- EXAM TIP-----------------------------------------------
When describing theft don't mention everything that you know, state the Actus Reus and Mens Rea and then describe in detail about the sections that may need more clarification, If it is uncertain that the Defendant was dishonest, then go into depth about dishonesty using the Ghosh test. DO NOT DESCRIBE IN DETAIL EACH PART OF THEFT YOU WILL NOT HAVE TIME (MARK MY WORDS). If they appropriated property, and this was obvious don't bother being descriptive here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right Appropriation (Part of the Actus Reus)
Appropriation comes under S3 of the Theft Act 1968 (got that, good) The important words in this section are as follows
ANY (ANNNNNNNNNNNNNY dont forget)' Any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner amounts to an appropriation'
This includes some of the following
Selling the property
Destroying the property
Possessing the Property
Consuming the property (e.g. fat kid steals a chocolate cake from his mates fridge)
Using the property
Lending the property (e.g. lending an MP3 to your friend to listen to it)
Hiring out the property
To be an appropriation, the (sneaky) thief must do something that assumes (and by that I mean takes) over one of the rights in that glorious list that you have just read above.
Lets look at some cases
PITHAM and HEHL (1997) Defendant had sold furniture belonging to another, this was held to be an appropriation. The offer to sell was an assumption of the rights of an owner, and the appropriation took place at that point. It did not matter whether the furniture had been removed from the owners property or not. Even if the owner had been deprived of the property, the Defendant had still appropriated it by assuming the rights of the owner to offer the furniture for sale. (tut tut)
Would you like to see another case? HELL WHY NOT
MORRIS (1983) Now the Defendant had been very sneaky in this particular case. He had switched of two items within the supermarket (just imagine their Heinz baked beans and tomato soup) He had put one of the items into, which now had the lower price on it, into the basket (which was provided by the store for shoppers) and then went to the checkout, he had not gone through the checkout when he was stopped and arrested (EPIC FAIL) His conviction for theft was upheld.
Snobby Judge "LORD" Roskill in the House of Lords stated that "It was enough for the prosecution if they proved that
The assumption of ANY (ANNYYY) of the rights of the owner of the goods in question.
And another, good old.............................
LAWRENCE (1971) This case involved appropriation and consent. Student went on taxi and Journey should have costed (A pathetic) 50p but (greedy) Mr Lawrence told the Student who barely spoke any English that the Journey was Expensive. The Student then took out £1 note from his wallet, and offered it to Mr Lawrence the greedy git said that " sorry Italian dude that is not enough" The student then gave the wallet to Mr Lawrence (who dribbled at all of the cash he had) and helped himself to another £6 pounds (probably the equivalence to £50 in today's world). Mr Lawrence basically **** himself in court. He argued that he had not appropriated property because the student had gave him consent to take the money from his wallet. (The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords were having none of it and rejected this argument and held that in fact there was an appropriation in this situation.
Another case
GOMEZ (1993) (and not the football player) This case also involved appropriation and consent. Gomez was an assistant manager of a shop. He persuaded the manager to sell electrical goods worth over a whopping £17,000 to an accomplice and to accept payment with two cheques, telling the manager that " hey boss, look they are as good as cash" There cheques were stolen and had absolutely no value. Gomez argued there had been no theft because the manager had consented to handing over the goods.
The House of Lords disagreed saying that an appropriation did take place. The right of the manager to sell and obtain the correct prices had been taken from him by the lousy Mr Gomez it had been appropriated.
LAWRENCE had confirmed that "consent is no defence to appropriation" though it can be taken into consideration as to the honesty or dishonesty of the defendant
Last case of appropriation
HINKS (2000) This case involved consent without deception. Hinks was a women who had befriended a man with a low IQ (sounds like most women JOKES) This Man was however mentally capable of understanding the concept of ownership and making a valid gift. Over a few months Hinks had accompanied the man to his bank where he withdrew money, this total added to £60000 and this money was given to Hinks who deposited it into her account. The man also gave Hinks a TV.
The Jury in this case needed to consider whether the man had been so mentally incapable that Hinks herself realised that ordinary decent people would regard this act as being dishonest to accept a gift from someone who had no idea what he was actually doing. Hinks was convicted of theft of the money and of the TV set.
.......................................................More to follow...............................................................
Still to go for theft
PROPERTY S4 involving Mushrooms and vegetation and personal property, what is defined as property blah blah blah
BELONGING TO ANOTHER S5
PERMANENTLY DEPRIVING THE OTHER OF IT S6
THEFT
Theft is defined in S1 of the Theft Act 1968. which states that "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Dishonestly (Part of the Mens Rea)
S2 There is no definition of what dishonestly actually means within the Theft Act. But if all elements of theft are present, then the defendants motive is not relevant. The Act however makes it clear that the 'appropriation' of property will not be regarded if
a) The defendant has a legal right to the property
b) The other person would have consented to the appropriation
c) The person to whom the property belongs to cannot be discovered when reasonable steps are taken to find them
The Ghosh Test
GHOSH (1982) Was a doctor acting as a locum consultant in hospital. He claimed fees for an operation which he did not carry out (Slippery B******). He said that he was not dishonest because he was owed the same amount by the hospital for consultation fees. The trial Judge directed the Jury that they must "APPLY THEIR OWN STANDARDS TO DECIDE IF WHAT GHOSH DID WAS DISHONEST. He was convicted and appealed against the conviction.
The Court of Appeal set out a 2 part test to be used in assessing the honesty or dishonesty of a defendant. The Ghosh test has both an OBJECTIVE element and a SUBJECTIVE element These are as follows.
1) Was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? (OBJECTIVE)
2) Did the defendant realise what he was doing was dishonest by those standards of reasonable and honest people ? (SUBJECTIVE)
The Ghosh test means that the Jury has to start with the OBJECTIVE test.
Was what was done dishonest according to ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?
If the act would not be regarded as being dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people then that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails (A BIG FAT F) The defendant is found NOT GUILTY (Lucky sod).
However if the jury decides that it was dishonest by those standards, the Jury must then decide if the defendant had known that it was dishonest by those standards. the second test is not completely subjective because the defendant is judged by his knowledge of what those ordinary standards were. This prevents the defendant from saying that, "although I knew ordinary people would regard my actions from being dishonest, I don't think your crappy standards would apply to me SIR with your barristers wig on. (DON'T PUT THAT PART IN THE EXAM PLEASE)
The Judge will use the Ghosh Test to direct the Jury only where there is an issue about dishonesty.
-------------------------- ----------- EXAM TIP-----------------------------------------------
When describing theft don't mention everything that you know, state the Actus Reus and Mens Rea and then describe in detail about the sections that may need more clarification, If it is uncertain that the Defendant was dishonest, then go into depth about dishonesty using the Ghosh test. DO NOT DESCRIBE IN DETAIL EACH PART OF THEFT YOU WILL NOT HAVE TIME (MARK MY WORDS). If they appropriated property, and this was obvious don't bother being descriptive here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right Appropriation (Part of the Actus Reus)
Appropriation comes under S3 of the Theft Act 1968 (got that, good) The important words in this section are as follows
ANY (ANNNNNNNNNNNNNY dont forget)' Any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner amounts to an appropriation'
This includes some of the following
Selling the property
Destroying the property
Possessing the Property
Consuming the property (e.g. fat kid steals a chocolate cake from his mates fridge)
Using the property
Lending the property (e.g. lending an MP3 to your friend to listen to it)
Hiring out the property
To be an appropriation, the (sneaky) thief must do something that assumes (and by that I mean takes) over one of the rights in that glorious list that you have just read above.
Lets look at some cases
PITHAM and HEHL (1997) Defendant had sold furniture belonging to another, this was held to be an appropriation. The offer to sell was an assumption of the rights of an owner, and the appropriation took place at that point. It did not matter whether the furniture had been removed from the owners property or not. Even if the owner had been deprived of the property, the Defendant had still appropriated it by assuming the rights of the owner to offer the furniture for sale. (tut tut)
Would you like to see another case? HELL WHY NOT
MORRIS (1983) Now the Defendant had been very sneaky in this particular case. He had switched of two items within the supermarket (just imagine their Heinz baked beans and tomato soup) He had put one of the items into, which now had the lower price on it, into the basket (which was provided by the store for shoppers) and then went to the checkout, he had not gone through the checkout when he was stopped and arrested (EPIC FAIL) His conviction for theft was upheld.
Snobby Judge "LORD" Roskill in the House of Lords stated that "It was enough for the prosecution if they proved that
The assumption of ANY (ANNYYY) of the rights of the owner of the goods in question.
And another, good old.............................
LAWRENCE (1971) This case involved appropriation and consent. Student went on taxi and Journey should have costed (A pathetic) 50p but (greedy) Mr Lawrence told the Student who barely spoke any English that the Journey was Expensive. The Student then took out £1 note from his wallet, and offered it to Mr Lawrence the greedy git said that " sorry Italian dude that is not enough" The student then gave the wallet to Mr Lawrence (who dribbled at all of the cash he had) and helped himself to another £6 pounds (probably the equivalence to £50 in today's world). Mr Lawrence basically **** himself in court. He argued that he had not appropriated property because the student had gave him consent to take the money from his wallet. (The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords were having none of it and rejected this argument and held that in fact there was an appropriation in this situation.
Another case
GOMEZ (1993) (and not the football player) This case also involved appropriation and consent. Gomez was an assistant manager of a shop. He persuaded the manager to sell electrical goods worth over a whopping £17,000 to an accomplice and to accept payment with two cheques, telling the manager that " hey boss, look they are as good as cash" There cheques were stolen and had absolutely no value. Gomez argued there had been no theft because the manager had consented to handing over the goods.
The House of Lords disagreed saying that an appropriation did take place. The right of the manager to sell and obtain the correct prices had been taken from him by the lousy Mr Gomez it had been appropriated.
LAWRENCE had confirmed that "consent is no defence to appropriation" though it can be taken into consideration as to the honesty or dishonesty of the defendant
Last case of appropriation
HINKS (2000) This case involved consent without deception. Hinks was a women who had befriended a man with a low IQ (sounds like most women JOKES) This Man was however mentally capable of understanding the concept of ownership and making a valid gift. Over a few months Hinks had accompanied the man to his bank where he withdrew money, this total added to £60000 and this money was given to Hinks who deposited it into her account. The man also gave Hinks a TV.
The Jury in this case needed to consider whether the man had been so mentally incapable that Hinks herself realised that ordinary decent people would regard this act as being dishonest to accept a gift from someone who had no idea what he was actually doing. Hinks was convicted of theft of the money and of the TV set.
.......................................................More to follow...............................................................
Still to go for theft
PROPERTY S4 involving Mushrooms and vegetation and personal property, what is defined as property blah blah blah
BELONGING TO ANOTHER S5
PERMANENTLY DEPRIVING THE OTHER OF IT S6
(edited 11 years ago)
Can't even face starting revision for this exam, but good luck!
Will be storming through the notes tomorrow looking at Robbery, Blackmail, Burglary and finishing of the Theft WHICH IS HENCH but please fill free to add your own notes to this particular thread and your questions about any of this tedious unit
Original post by AnyoneOutThere
Can't even face starting revision for this exam, but good luck!
You to, If you need any help, Ill be here up until the exam, but remember to check back because Ill be adding more notes which condenses the AQA Law book down quite a lot it puts that book to shame, (I hope anyway)
Original post by SteveDawson
You to, If you need any help, Ill be here up until the exam, but remember to check back because Ill be adding more notes which condenses the AQA Law book down quite a lot it puts that book to shame, (I hope anyway)
Cheers, but I don't think I'm doing any of that property stuff (this is making me sound really thick, I promise I'm not, just tired). Yeah, the AQA book is terrible, apparently, even if you learn it all, it's only cut out for a C! I will be starting revision on monday afternoon and I need an A. Lord help me!
Original post by AnyoneOutThere
Cheers, but I don't think I'm doing any of that property stuff (this is making me sound really thick, I promise I'm not, just tired). Yeah, the AQA book is terrible, apparently, even if you learn it all, it's only cut out for a C! I will be starting revision on monday afternoon and I need an A. Lord help me!
Well I wish you Luck, I'm sure you will get that A, but hey get some sleep women
. The book has so much stuff in it, a lot of it isn't really necessary at all, and besides you wouldn't have enough time to be able to write as much detail as what the book has. Anyway, be sure to Let me know how you find the exam Next Friday.Im dreading this exam. Not the scenario questions. The law and morals/justice. Part C basically. I havent learn any of the essays and feel like i havent got enough time to learn three big essays on top of all the cases and tests. God help me
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by Shaz786
Im dreading this exam. Not the scenario questions. The law and morals/justice. Part C basically. I havent learn any of the essays and feel like i havent got enough time to learn three big essays on top of all the cases and tests. God help me
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
I truely feel your pain. WE CAN DO IT!
Original post by Shaz786
Im dreading this exam. Not the scenario questions. The law and morals/justice. Part C basically. I havent learn any of the essays and feel like i havent got enough time to learn three big essays on top of all the cases and tests. God help me
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
I wish you luck. Same with me. Lots to revise and so little time to do it in
(edited 11 years ago)
there is way too much within it and it is really hard to learn Same do you have any exams before the Law exam.
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100
Does anybody have the link to Jans exam paper please? 
Did you mean for the January 2011 paper
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100
I have this exam and a business exam
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100
Original post by AlexandraRose
Does anybody have the link to Jans exam paper please?
Isn't the unit 4 exam only ever in june? so there wouldn't be any january papers for this unit?
Original post by AJ_94
Isn't the unit 4 exam only ever in june? so there wouldn't be any january papers for this unit?
Sorry, brain has fried from too much revision haha, totally forgot that.
How many past papers have there been with the new layout?
AQA's website only shows two, but I thought it was three?
Original post by AlexandraRose
Sorry, brain has fried from too much revision haha, totally forgot that.
How many past papers have there been with the new layout?
AQA's website only shows two, but I thought it was three?
How many past papers have there been with the new layout?
AQA's website only shows two, but I thought it was three?
i've only found two, the june 2010 and 2011 papers. If you find a third paper, feel free to share it
Original post by AJ_94
i've only found two, the june 2010 and 2011 papers. If you find a third paper, feel free to share it
Yeah, i've only found two. I'm sure i've heard there's three, could be wrong though
On another note, is this thread just for criminal?
Because i'm doing tort, and I really need the structure for answering vicarious liability, if anybody has one by chance, I would be grateful.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2023
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- School is killing me - Y11 "GYG" 2022
- GCSE 2024 timetable
- AQA GCSE Chemistry Paper 2 Foundation Tier (8462 2F) - 13 June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Over 500 questions on AQA Bio Unit 4 + Current Spec and old Spec papers + MS!
- London Accommodation Needed
- AQA A Level Law Paper 2 (7162/2) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Need student accommodation London
- Go ahead in time as far as possible
- OCR GCSE Physics A Paper 4 Higher Tier (J249/04) - 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA GCSE Chemistry Paper 1 Foundation Tier (8462 1F) - 22nd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA GCSE Spanish Speaking Higher Tier 2H (8698/SH) - 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Law- Alevel subjects help
- UCL Accommodation Tenancy Takeover
- University Choices for LLB law
- gyg gcse 2024!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
