Theft Act
Hi guys,
I am a little confused.. Idk if this is two questions in one.
Boris steals from the shop, and he also picks up mr. aldbury’s phone attempting to run away.. am I suppose to answer both issues..?
After he has phoned the police, Nuhu, the security guard, is called away on security business. He tells Boris not to leave the security office and that he will check in on him soon. Boris sees this as his opportunity to escape so he grabs his shopping and makes a run for it to the carpark. As he is running through the carpark, he sees Mr. Aldbury who is obstructing his clear path to his car. Instead of attempting to circumnavigate Mr. Aldbury, Boris cries out ‘get the hell out of my way!’ and almost instantly collides with Mr. Aldbury knocking them both to the ground. Boris quickly gets to his feet and regains his composure; he grabs his shopping along with Mr. Aldbury’s wallet which has dropped to the ground during the incident. Boris quickly makes his getaway in his car.
Discuss the potential liability of Boris and Henna for offences under the Theft Act 1968.
I am a little confused.. Idk if this is two questions in one.
Boris steals from the shop, and he also picks up mr. aldbury’s phone attempting to run away.. am I suppose to answer both issues..?
After he has phoned the police, Nuhu, the security guard, is called away on security business. He tells Boris not to leave the security office and that he will check in on him soon. Boris sees this as his opportunity to escape so he grabs his shopping and makes a run for it to the carpark. As he is running through the carpark, he sees Mr. Aldbury who is obstructing his clear path to his car. Instead of attempting to circumnavigate Mr. Aldbury, Boris cries out ‘get the hell out of my way!’ and almost instantly collides with Mr. Aldbury knocking them both to the ground. Boris quickly gets to his feet and regains his composure; he grabs his shopping along with Mr. Aldbury’s wallet which has dropped to the ground during the incident. Boris quickly makes his getaway in his car.
Discuss the potential liability of Boris and Henna for offences under the Theft Act 1968.
(edited 1 year ago)
Boris is potentially liable for a number of offences under the Theft Act 1968, including:
Taking without consent: Boris took goods from the shop without the owner's consent. This is an offence under section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Going equipped: Boris was carrying a screwdriver when he went into the shop. This is an offence under section 25(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Burglary: Boris entered the shop as a trespasser with the intention of stealing. This is an offence under section 9(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Robbery: Boris used force to steal Mr. Aldbury's wallet. This is an offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Henna is potentially liable for an offence under section 4(3) of the Theft Act 1968. This section makes it an offence for a person to assist another person to commit theft, even if they do not actually take any of the goods themselves. In this case, Henna helped Boris to steal the goods from the shop by driving him there and waiting for him outside.
It is important to note that these are just potential offences. The actual liability of Boris and Henna will depend on the specific facts of the case.
Taking without consent: Boris took goods from the shop without the owner's consent. This is an offence under section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Going equipped: Boris was carrying a screwdriver when he went into the shop. This is an offence under section 25(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Burglary: Boris entered the shop as a trespasser with the intention of stealing. This is an offence under section 9(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Robbery: Boris used force to steal Mr. Aldbury's wallet. This is an offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Henna is potentially liable for an offence under section 4(3) of the Theft Act 1968. This section makes it an offence for a person to assist another person to commit theft, even if they do not actually take any of the goods themselves. In this case, Henna helped Boris to steal the goods from the shop by driving him there and waiting for him outside.
It is important to note that these are just potential offences. The actual liability of Boris and Henna will depend on the specific facts of the case.
Original post by Syed100
Boris is potentially liable for a number of offences under the Theft Act 1968, including:
Taking without consent: Boris took goods from the shop without the owner's consent. This is an offence under section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Going equipped: Boris was carrying a screwdriver when he went into the shop. This is an offence under section 25(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Burglary: Boris entered the shop as a trespasser with the intention of stealing. This is an offence under section 9(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Robbery: Boris used force to steal Mr. Aldbury's wallet. This is an offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Henna is potentially liable for an offence under section 4(3) of the Theft Act 1968. This section makes it an offence for a person to assist another person to commit theft, even if they do not actually take any of the goods themselves. In this case, Henna helped Boris to steal the goods from the shop by driving him there and waiting for him outside.
It is important to note that these are just potential offences. The actual liability of Boris and Henna will depend on the specific facts of the case.
Taking without consent: Boris took goods from the shop without the owner's consent. This is an offence under section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Going equipped: Boris was carrying a screwdriver when he went into the shop. This is an offence under section 25(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Burglary: Boris entered the shop as a trespasser with the intention of stealing. This is an offence under section 9(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Robbery: Boris used force to steal Mr. Aldbury's wallet. This is an offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
Henna is potentially liable for an offence under section 4(3) of the Theft Act 1968. This section makes it an offence for a person to assist another person to commit theft, even if they do not actually take any of the goods themselves. In this case, Henna helped Boris to steal the goods from the shop by driving him there and waiting for him outside.
It is important to note that these are just potential offences. The actual liability of Boris and Henna will depend on the specific facts of the case.
thank you, you’ve given me clearer understanding. I get it now! lol thanks a lot.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by dontworryboo
thank you, you’ve given me clearer understanding. I get it now! lol thanks a lot.
No worries, happy to help
would you be able to help me with hennas part? if I sent it..
Original post by Syed100
No worries, happy to help
Henna, Boris’ wife works for Aldbury’s as an office clerk. She is also worried about their finances as they have lost Boris’ income. That day while she is working in the outer office, her boss Mr. Aldbury informs Henna that he is going out for lunch. He tells her that he has left his adjoining inner office door and the office safe open should she need to access the office cash which includes the previous day’s takings of £18,000. Henna’s duties include the banking. While he is gone, Henna enters the inner office thinking about what she could do with the money. She approaches the safe and is reaching out and grasping hold of the bag of cash when she hears her boss re-enter the outer office, saying he has forgotten his wallet. She has just enough time to regain her composure, leaves the money where she found it, and embarrassed at her actions, returns to her desk.
I don’t believe there is any liability here
I don’t believe there is any liability here
Original post by dontworryboo
would you be able to help me with hennas part? if I sent it..
yes sure
No, Henna does not have any liability. She did not actually steal any money, and she did not even attempt to steal any money. She simply thought about it, but then she decided not to do it.
In the eyes of the law, Henna did not commit any crime. She did not have the requisite mens rea, or criminal intent, to commit theft. She did not intend to steal any money, and she did not take any steps to steal any money.
Henna's actions were simply a thought crime, and thought crimes are not illegal. Everyone has thoughts that they would never act on, and Henna is no different. She should not be punished for something that she only thought about doing.
Henna's actions were also not unethical. She was tempted to steal money, but she ultimately decided not to do it. She showed good character by resisting temptation and doing the right thing.
In the eyes of the law, Henna did not commit any crime. She did not have the requisite mens rea, or criminal intent, to commit theft. She did not intend to steal any money, and she did not take any steps to steal any money.
Henna's actions were simply a thought crime, and thought crimes are not illegal. Everyone has thoughts that they would never act on, and Henna is no different. She should not be punished for something that she only thought about doing.
Henna's actions were also not unethical. She was tempted to steal money, but she ultimately decided not to do it. She showed good character by resisting temptation and doing the right thing.
Thank you, you’re a star! <3
Original post by Syed100
No, Henna does not have any liability. She did not actually steal any money, and she did not even attempt to steal any money. She simply thought about it, but then she decided not to do it.
In the eyes of the law, Henna did not commit any crime. She did not have the requisite mens rea, or criminal intent, to commit theft. She did not intend to steal any money, and she did not take any steps to steal any money.
Henna's actions were simply a thought crime, and thought crimes are not illegal. Everyone has thoughts that they would never act on, and Henna is no different. She should not be punished for something that she only thought about doing.
Henna's actions were also not unethical. She was tempted to steal money, but she ultimately decided not to do it. She showed good character by resisting temptation and doing the right thing.
In the eyes of the law, Henna did not commit any crime. She did not have the requisite mens rea, or criminal intent, to commit theft. She did not intend to steal any money, and she did not take any steps to steal any money.
Henna's actions were simply a thought crime, and thought crimes are not illegal. Everyone has thoughts that they would never act on, and Henna is no different. She should not be punished for something that she only thought about doing.
Henna's actions were also not unethical. She was tempted to steal money, but she ultimately decided not to do it. She showed good character by resisting temptation and doing the right thing.
Original post by dontworryboo
Thank you, you’re a star! <3
haha if you say so, thanks!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Theft Act 1968 - Criticisms?
- Study techniques!
- AQA A Level Law Paper 1 26th May 2023
- OCR A Level Law 2024 Predictions
- OCR A-level Law Paper 1 (H418/01) - 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Training Contract with Childhood Reprimand?
- Regarding a level law
- Shoplifting
- Shoplifting
- Marshall’s Lane PA1 post code
- OCR a level law 2024
- BTEC Law unit 3 exam January 2024
- GCSE geography 8 mark question
- could i get into serious legal trouble for this?
- Cycle Storage - Fitzwilliam College
- I did shoplifting in Primark
- What to do if provisional license is lost or stolen
- DBS representations
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- How to protect your work from copying and theft of intellectual travel?
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]
