Theft Act is an Act to improve the law of theft and alike or associated offences, and in association therewith to make the condition as to criminal procedures by one party to a union against the other, and to make positive amendments extending further than England and Wales in the Post Office Act 1953 and other endorsement; and for other functions connected therewith (Klass, 1997).
Discuss the liability (if any) of Xavier.
Xavier is liable of theft and dishonesty. He is dishonest by changing the tags so as to buy a bottle of vintage wine at a wrong price. The intent of crime constitutes to the crime consequences. Even though he end up not taking he is liable due to intent. It is evident when he steals a bottle of gin thus liable for theft. Finally he grabs the lady’s purse and flees with it. These are theft cases since no force has been applied to gain possession. According to the Theft Act 1968 (a) If he appropriates the possessions in the belief that he has in regulation the right to rob the other of it, on behalf of oneself or of a third individual; or (b) if he appropriates the possessions in the conviction that he would have the other’s approval if the other acknowledge the appropriation and the situation of it. According to Theft Act 1968 Xavier is guilty of theft since he dishonestly appropriates price tags with the intention of permanently robbing the other of it; and “burglar” and “steal” shall be construed consequently. It is irrelevant whether the appropriation is done with a concept to gain, or is made for the thief’s own advantage. The intent of committing a crime is considered a crime. The victim is liable of the intended crime.
Advise Fred, Ros and Paul of their liability
Fred is liable of dishonesty since he pretends to be Sally’s friend to get a chance to steal valuable. According to act of theft, Fred appropriates the possessions in the belief that he has in law the privilege to divest the other of it. It is dishonest to disguise as a friend so as to gain the opportunity of stealing. Fred is liable of consequences of theft. Fred’s real purpose is to steal anything worth taking from the flat. According to 91a of the act that declares; when somebody enters a building as an intruder intending to carry out any of the 3 offences (criminal damage, theft, burglary) but for some cause does not succeed. The intention of Fred was clear despite the outcome; that is why he is liable. Ros is liable for appropriation since he makes the assumption that the CD is the one which was borrowed. He takes it without Sally’s knowledge. According to Theft Act 1968, any assumption by an individual of the rights of an owner quantity to an appropriation, and this constitutes, where he has got the property (innocently or not) devoid of stealing it, any later supposition of a right to it by retaining or dealing with it as proprietor. Paul deciding to keep money, which was intended to provide food, is an act of dishonesty. He also liable of theft due to appropriation; this is according to the Theft Act 1968 which states; where property or a privilege or interest in possessions is or purports to be transferred for worth to a person acting in clear conscience, no later supposition by him of rights which he supposed himself to be obtaining shall, by cause of any defect in the transferor’s ownership, quantify to theft of property.
What are the differences between burglary under s.9 (1) (a) of the Theft Act 1968 and burglary under s.9 (1)(b) 4.
The simplest mean of putting it is 91a is when somebody enters a building as an intruder intending to carry out any of the 3 offences (criminal damage, theft, and burglary) but for some cause does not succeed. Section 91b covers when an intruder has entered and gone on to steal or commit the crime, however, not commit damage. A person is culpable of burglary if—(a) he enters any construction or part of a house as a trespasser and with the intention to commit any such crime as is stated in subsection; or (b) having entered any house or part of a house as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the house or that part of it or impose or attempts to inflict on any individual therein any serious bodily injury. (2)The offences considered to in subsection (1)(a) above are crimes of stealing anything in the house or part of a house in question, of imposing on any person therein any grave bodily harm therein, and of liability unlawful damage to the construction or anything therein.
“Burglary under s.9(1)(b)A person does an offence of burglary under s.9(1)(b) if, having entered as a gatecrasher, he steals, try to steal anything in the house or inflict or tries to inflict GBH on any individual therein. The major difference of the two crimes of burglary is that under (a) the intention must be formed at the instance of entry whereas under (b) the intention to entrust the ulterior offence can come later. Also (a) covers illegal damage whereas (b) does not.”
The concepts of appropriation and dishonesty have caused particular complexity in the law of theft
I totally agree with the argument since appropriation and dishonesty has given jury difficult times of making conclusions of cases (Glover, 2010). The law cannot declare that it is an offence to grounds loss dishonestly, and that creating loss is dishonest except in convinced defined circumstances: clearly this would shed the net of criminal legal responsibility far too wide. Where the behavior elements of an offence are ethically neutral, the element of deceit has to do more than just exclude specific types of behavior which, though prima facie unlawful, do not merit to be criminal. The law of theft, as comprehended in Gomez and Hinks, has been the instance of almost unanimous educational condemnation and of robust rebel opinions in the House of Kings. While much of the critical conversation is sophisticated and demanding, it is significant that the baby is not to be thrown with the bathwater. That why I agree with argument in favor of the existing position is that it offers separate protection to some of the more susceptible members of the community. This benefit ought, however, to be sacrificed if it can be purchased only at the expense of violating the law and the harm code. However, my understanding of these ideas reveals that the price require not be paid. The rule of law has not one concept, but a plurality of notions, many of which support the existing position. As for the harm standard, it is notable that Hinks does not criticize harmless behavior; rather it condemns the wrong of exploitation.
The Theft Act defines and states the situations that make one liable of theft or burglary. The various persons in this study had committed or liable of theft due to various intentions or actions.