Law Unit 5 - Criticisms Of Property Offences

Hello, first post on this forum. Will certainly aim to stick around.

I have a law exam on Tuesday and there will be a substantial essay question regarding 'criticisms of property offences'.

In an ideal world I would like to evaluate the offence of Theft, but I genuinely can't find any online material so I can revise it.

Can anyone help me or provide a decent link?

Apologies if I've posted in the wrong area etc.

Thanks,
geoff

Reply 1

ADavis1

http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_60_propety_offences/01_theft.htm

This is the best I can find that is free. I used a site our 6th form paid for access too.

GL in the exam, I have it too! :frown:

Not looking forward to Unit 6 at all.

Reply 2

buxton6699

Thanks for your help mate.

I should point out that I'm okay with the general offence of Theft, I'm just not so sure about the criticisms/advantages of the offence!

Reply 3

ADavis1

Sorry thought that was criticisms :frown:

Reply 4

Tactical Nuclear Penguin

Just a few pointers for you:

1. Can be an appropriation even with consent, as in Gomez
2. Has the concept of appropriation become 'colourless' as the defendant can be convicted of theft for recieving a valid gift, as in Hinks
3. Wide definition of the term 'property' has caused some surprise decisions e.g. in Turner
4. Risk of inconsistent decisions with the Ghosh test left to the jury

Reply 5

Kal66

I've got that exam on tuesday too. This is a very trimmed down version of the essay I plan to use. It was based on one of the few USEFUL sheets we got in class. Got a me a good grade in the mock so I hope I remember it all lol.

Although the Theft Act 1968 defined theft in language that it was intended for everyone to understand, numerous rulings since then have set common law variations on the original definition which have complicated the matter.

Appropriation was defined in s.3(1) and clarified in Morris as "assuming and interfering with the rights of ownership". However, the decision in Gomez meant that appropriation can be consented to, which established it as a neutral word dependent on other aspects of theft. This means that all casesof "obtaing property by deception", and the later Fraud that superceded it, an be charged as merely theft.

The decision in Hinks complicated it further by allowing gift-giving to be appropriation. This case caused disagreement among the judges, as, according to Lord Hobhouse, this conflicted with the civil law on gift-giving.

Criticism has come from the phrase "property belonging to another". The word "Property" has not caused too much trouble, having been expanded to include almost anything; the act specified only what is NOT property. This has only caused minor issues, such as in the cases of Oxford v Moss and Kelly and Lindsay.

More problems have come from the "belonging to another" portion of the actus reus. This has been established to mean "in possession or control", which has caused some surprising problems. For example, the cases of Turner No.2 made the judges decide whether or not one could steal their own property. The case of Woodman spawned the curious ruling on stealing abandoned property.

The mens rea has also caused some issues.

Dishonesty is generally defined by the Ghosh test, but this has itself been criticised for leaving too much to the jury, leading to inconsistent decisiojns. The emphasis on objectiveness has led to bad decisions (if the jury don't consider the defendant guilty by reasonable standards, he is automatically not guilty, even if he was dishonest by his own standards).

The phrase "Intention to perminently deprive" seems straightforward, but it has been very difficult for the courts to decide what constitutes this. Some consider this element or the word "perminently" unnecessary. In the case of Lloyd, the defendant, a film pirate, was found not guilty purely because he intended to return the original film. There is also the issue of conditional intention to deprive, such as in the case of Easom. It has been suggested that the word "permanently" is replaced with "temporarily". This would not only solve the problem of conditional intention, as well as cases such as Lloyd, but will also brnig the law in line with burglary, in which conditional intention is acceptable for a conviction.

Hope you find that helpful!