Elements Of Property Offences In UK Essay

Introduction

In most societies today. belongings offenses have become prevailing in most tribunals of jurisprudence. There have been instances of belongings offenses here and at that place in most states of the universe. United Kingdom is non exceeding when it comes to the issue of belongings offenses ; hence. in this seminar presentation a succinct or close scrutiny of belongings offenses in the United Kingdom shall be the focal point of our treatment. This will fix the immature and possible beds in colleges for their impending mock jurisprudence scrutiny. Therefore. this paper is a tract to success in the country of condemnable jurisprudence. as it will broaden the skyline of pupils emphasizing in condemnable jurisprudence. peculiarly in the country belongings offenses.

AN OVERVIEW OF PROPERTY OFFENCES

There are broad assortments or sorts of belongings offenses under both the common jurisprudence and the statue jurisprudence as initiated by the parliament. Understanding of what is term common jurisprudence becomes imperative here ; the common jurisprudence is the jurisprudence which has been built up by Judgess doing determinations over centuries. We refer to the judges’ jurisprudence as “precedents” . which it is offer called in most tribunals today. Like the instance above. apprehension of belongings offenses ; the chief statue jurisprudence passed by the parliament of New South Wales which deals with belongings offenses is the offenses Act 1900. which has been amended by the parliament many times since it was enacted.

Property offenses therefore involve highly complicated relationships between the belongings itself. whose belongings it is and whether or non it is in someone’s ownership. and what relationship or apprehension there is between the accused and the victim about the belongings. It is hence really of import to take casual scrutiny of the assorted issues that can originate from belongings offenses. This will supply plenty insight and information to a better apprehension of belongings offenses.

The most common offenses are larceny. receiving and malicious harm. which shall be treated below.

It is an offense under the Crime Act of 1900 in New South Wales to perpetrate theft. Thus the maximal punishment for such given by the legislative act is 5 old ages end. The significance or elements of the offense of theft are governed by the common jurisprudence. or judge-made jurisprudence. which have built up over the old ages with judicial determinations. The elements of the offense of theft are good established and have been summarized therefore.

A individual must without the consent of the proprietor. fraudulently and without claim of right made in good religion. take and transport off. anything capable of being stolen. with purpose at the clip of such taking for good to strip the proprietor of that belongings. As shown here. each of these elements contain facts which would hold to be proved beyond sensible uncertainties by the prosecution for the offense to be proved in tribunal. A typical illustration is that if a individual walks into a store and takes a bag of rice from and walks out meaning to maintain the bag of rice for himself or herself. and without any permission or right to make so. that individual is guilty of theft.

Shop lifting is the most common signifier of theft. However. if the facts are charged straightly. the prosecution can non win. This means that if the individual who took the bag of rice does non mean to for good strip the proprietor of the rice. so he does non perpetrate theft. If the bag of rice really becomes to the individual because he or she paid for it in the store earlier that twenty-four hours and left it in the store to be collected subsequently. so there is no instance of theft because the individual a claim of right and ownership. The fluctuations on the facts are many and every instance is haled depending on its ain facts in the jurisprudence tribunal.

ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

The actus reus-sometimes called the external component of a offense is a Latin term for the guilty act which. when proven beyond sensible uncertainty in combination with the work forces rea. i. e. the “guilty mind” produces condemnable liability in common law-based on condemnable jurisprudence legal power of Canada. Australia. New Zealand. England. Scotland. and the United States. Harmonizing to Allen. Michael “In condemnable jurisprudence. mens rea—the Latin term for “guilty mind” is normally one of the necessary elements of offense.

The criterions common jurisprudence trial of condemnable liability is normally expressed in Latin phrase ; actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. which means that the act does non do a individual guilty unless the head is besides guilty” . Therefore in legal powers with due procedure. there must be an actus reus accompanied by some degree of work forces rea to represent the offense with which the suspect is charged.

In this sense. work forces rea refers to the mental component of the offense that accompanied the actus reus. In some legal powers. the footings mens rea and actus reus have been superseded by alternate nomenclature. However. there are four general categories of work forces rea which its words may change from one province to another. These include ( 1 ) purpose ( 2 ) cognition ( 3 ) Recklessness ( 4 ) carelessness.

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION INTO THEFT BY THEFT ACT 1968. ROBBERY – S. 8 ( 1 )

The Act 1960 ( 1968c. 60 ) is an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom. regulating most of the general belongings offenses in English jurisprudence. On 15 January 2007. the Fraud Act 2006 came into force. reiterating most of the offenses f misrepresentation. Historically. the Theft Act 1960 resulted from the attempts of the Criminal Law Revision commission to reform the English jurisprudence of Theft.

The Larceny Act 1916 had codified the common jurisprudence. including Larceny itself. but it remained a complex web of offenses. The purpose of the Theft Act 1968. was to replace the bing jurisprudence of theft and other misrepresentation related offenses. by individual passage. making a more consistent organic structure of rules that would let the jurisprudence to germinate to run into a new redemptions. The Act was assented to on July 26^Thursday. 1968.

To understand Theft by Theft Act. the basic definition of larceny itself becomes imperative.

Larceny ; DEFINITION

In the condemnable Law. larceny ( besides known as stealing ) is “the illegal pickings of another individuals belongings without that person’s freely-give consent. As a term. it is used as stenography for all major offenses against belongings. embracing offenses such as burglary. peculation. theft. robbery. robbery. mugging. intruding. store raising. invasion. fraud ( larceny by misrepresentation ) and sometimes condemnable conversion” . Larceny is offer considered to be synonymous with theft. In this work. larceny has replaced theft. Therefore. person who carries out an act O for makes calling of larceny known as a stealer. Therefore. a individual shall be guilty of larceny if he venally appropriate. belongings belonging to another with the purpose of for good striping the other of it.

DETAILS OF THEFT TO THEFT ACT – 1968

THEFT ACT 1968. AGGRAVATED BURGLARY.

1. ROBBERY = P.
2. A individual is guilty of robbery if he steals. and instantly before or at the clip of making so. and in order to make so. he uses force on any individual or puts or seeks to set any individual in fright of being there and at that place subjected to coerce. This means in a clear and simple term that the victim of such robbery is subjected to either physical or mental anguish. This is a scheme employ by the robber to attach to his / her mission. In this instance. a typical illustration is relevant. Take for case. Mr. Johnson and Alfred entered a hotel with a gun and shooting to the air to intimidate the clients and the workers. collected monies and other valuables from them. on their manner out of the hotel. they were caught by the alerted patrol squad of the constabulary. in this state of affairs Alfred and Mr. Johnson are guilty of robbery.
3. A individual guilty of robbery or of an assaults with purpose to rob. shall on strong belief on indictment be apt to imprisonment for life. This should be the instance of Alfred and Mr. Johnson exemplified above.

Burglary

1. A individual is guilty of burglary if:
2. He enters any edifice or portion of a edifice as a intruder. he steals or efforts to steal anything in the edifice or that portion of breast or inflicts or efforts to bring down on any individual therein any dangerous bodily injury.

1. The offenses referred to in sub-section 1 ( a ) above are offenses of stealing anything in the edifice or portion of a edifice in inquiry. of bring downing on any individual therein any dangerous bodily injury or ( ravishing any individual therein. and of making improper harm to the edifice or anything in this.

three. A individual guilty of burglary shall be on strong belief on indictment be apt to imprisonment for a term non transcending ;

1. Where the offense was committed in regard of a edifice or portion of a edifice which is a brooding 14 old ages ;
2. In any other instance. ten old ages.
3. Mentions in subdivisions ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) above to a edifice. and the mention in subdivision ( 3 ) above to a edifice which is a home. shall use besides to an inhabited vehicle or vas. and shall use to any such vehicle or vas at times when the individual holding a habitation in it is non at that place every bit good as at times when he is.

A good illustration of a individual who seems to be guilty of burglary is established therefore ;

Mr. Ali broke into Mr. John’s room. while he is off in Germany. on go forthing. the security caught him. and dragged him to the tribunal ; John Mr. Ali’s action. he is guilty of burglary and is apt to confront the charges and all the punishments.

OBTAINING PROPERTY BY DECEPTION. S. 15

Any belongings get without the consent of the ain through any signifier of doubtful agencies is said to be a offense. Take for case. it a vehicle is taken with the consent of the proprietor. it is said to be legal. nevertheless when consent if ignored. it is so said to be misrepresentation. Another good illustration is when 1 put up a force individuality to engage a auto. This overlaps with the 15 offenses of obtaining belongings or services by misrepresentation. Taking by force may be robbery when suspect did non mean the victim to retrieve the auto at all or so earnestly damaged that it amounts to larceny. It the grounds is deficient for larceny. the alternate charges are aggravated vehicle taking or blackjacking under S21. “Note that S12 ( 7 ) protects the involvement of people engaging or purchasing under a hire purchase understanding holding them to be the proprietor for the intents of S12” . hypertext transfer protocol. //en/wikipedia. org/wiki/IWOCH/ without the consent of the proprietor.

AVERSION OF LIABILITY BY DECEPTION UNDER S. 2 – D THEFT ACT 1979

Counterfeit is the procedure of doing or accommodating objects or paperss 9see false papers ) . with the purpose to lead on. The similar offense of fraud is the offense of lead oning another including through the usage of objects obtaining through counterfeit. Transcripts. studios answers. and reproductions are non considered counterfeits. though they may subsequently go counterfeits through knowing and wilful misattributions.

In the 16^Thursdaycentury impersonators of Albrecht Durer’s manner of print devising improved the market for their ain prints by subscribing them “AD” . doing them counterfeits.

In the 20^Thursdaycentury the art market made counterfeits extremely profitable. There are widespread counterfeits of particularly valued creative persons. such as drawings meant to be by Picasso. Nee. and Matisse. This use of “forgery” does non deduce from metal work done at “forge” . but it has a parallel history. A sense of “to counterfeit” is already in the Anglo-French verb forger “falsify” . Forgery is one of the techniques of fraud. including individuality larceny. Forgery is one of the menaces that have to be addressed by security technology.

A counterfeit is basically concerned with a produced or altered object. Where the premier concern of counterfeit is less focused on the object itself – what it is deserving or what it proves” – than on a silent statement of unfavorable judgment that is revealed by reactions the object provokes in others. so the larger procedure is a fraud. In a fraud. a rumour or a echt object “planted” in a concocted state of affairs. may replace for a gorged physical object.

OBTAINING A Money TRANSFER THROUGH DECEPTION

Obtaining a money transportation by misrepresentation ( 1 ) alter subdivision 15 of the ( 1968 c. 60 ) larceny Act 1968 insert – “is a obtaining a money transportation by misrepresentation

1. A individual is guilty of an offense if by any misrepresentation he venally obtains a money transportation for himself or another.
2. A money transportation occurs when –
3. a debit is made to one history
4. a recognition is made to another history
5. the recognition consequences from debit consequences from the recognition
6. Mentions to a recognition and to a debit are to a recognition of an sum of money and to a debit of an sum of money.
7. It is immaterial ( in specific ) –
8. whether the sum credited is the same as the sum debited
9. whether the money transportation is effected on notification of check or by another method
10. whether any hold occurs in the procedure by which the money transportation effected.
11. Whether any intermediate credits or debits are made in the class of the money transportation.
12. Whether either of the histories is overdrawn before or after the money transportation is affect.
13. A individual guilty of an offense under this subdivision shall be apt in strong belief on indictment to imprisonment for a term non transcending tem old ages. 15 B subdivision 15A: supplementary ( 1 ) the undermentioned commissariats have consequence for the reading of subdivision 15A of this Act.
14. “Deception” has the same significance as in subdivision 15 of this Act.
15. “Account means an history kept with –
16. a bank or
17. a individual transporting on a concern which falls within subdivision ( 4 ) below
18. A concern falls within subdivision if –
19. in the expletive of the concern money received by manner of sedimentation is lent to others ; or
20. any other activity of the concern is financed entirely or to any material extent. out of the capital of R the involvement on money received by manner of sedimentation.
21. For the intent of subdivision ( 4 ) above –
22. all the activities which a individual carries on by manner of concern shall be regarded as a individual concern carried on by him ; and
23. “money” includes money expressed in a currency other so sterling in the European currency unit ( as defined in council ordinance N. 3320/94/EC or any community instrument replacing it” .
24. Nothing in this subdivision has consequence in relation to anything done before the twenty-four hours on which this act is passed.
25. Dishonesty retaining a unlawful recognition ( 1 ) after subdivision 24 of the larceny Act 1968 insert – 24 a venally retaining a unlawful recognition ( 1 ) A individual is guilty of an offense if –
26. a unlawful recognition has been made to an history kept by him or in regard of which he has any right or involvement.
27. He knows or believes that the recognition is unlawful ; and he venally fails to take such stairss as are sensible in the fortunes to procure that the recognition is cancelled.
28. Mentions to a recognition are to a recognition of an sum of money.
29. A recognition to an history is besides unlawful if it is the recognition side of money transportation obtained contrary to segment 15A of this Act ;

The few sited illustrations should make as they have clearly established the significance of misrepresentation in the instance of money transportation.

Conclusively therefore. this piece of work is a tract to a great success in the country of condemnable jurisprudence in relation to pupils who are fixing for their mock scrutiny. In this respects. the pupil of condemnable jurisprudence. at the terminal this seminar paper presentation will be certain that they won’t be ridiculed by any sort of inquiry that might probably face them. Therefore. this paper is a entire and holistic reappraisal of Theft by Theft Act of 1968 under the U. K condemnable jurisprudence. The paper therefore is an oculus opener to the pupils as many thing. would go rather clear to them.

Mentions

1. Allen Michael ( 2005 ) Criminal Law. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
2. //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/TWOC without the content of the proprietor.