The Criminal Liability of Roxy - Essay Example

?Assignment Roxy visited her local library to see if she could find the latest Agatha Banks detective novel. She intended to steal it if she could. Roxy found the book she wanted and took it off the bookshelf. She was about to slip it into her bag when she noticed the librarian watching her and she put the book back on self and left library On her way home she went into a corner shop to buy a newspaper. Roxy paid for the newspaper but it was not until she was outside the shop that she realised she had been given too much change. She decided to keep it. Roxy had received 100 from Ronnie her sister towards the shared cost for their weekly rent. Roxy used money to buy a new pair of shoes instead. When Roxy arrived home her neighbour, Trisha invited her in for a cup of tea. While she was there, she noticed Trisha’s new Rolex watch and asked Trisha if she could borrow it to wear to an appointment she had later on that day as she wanted to impress the person she was meeting. Trisha refused as she was worried that Roxy might lose it. When Trisha was not looking, Roxy took the watch intending to return it that evening after her appointment. Her appointment ended earlier than she expected, however, an on her way home she noticed that the pawnshop was still open. As she was short of money, she decided to pawn the watch and redeem it the following day when she received her wages. She would return it to Trisha when she had redeemed it. Consider the criminal liability, if any, of Roxy. Basic Structure Examination of the actus reus of theft, then mens rea, then conclude. Introduction: s1. Then, analyse the Actus Reus in s3(1), s4(1), s5(1). s3(1), s4(1), s5(1) need analyse too. Look at the scenario, and begin to identify what facts apply to the sections, with the relevant cases Then you do the same thing for mens rea: (s2) then s6, describe them, state that Roxy is dishonest and intends to deprive, then apply the ghosh test, and your outcome should be that she is guilty, and the prosecution will succeed here. This is a basic structure. However you can add whatever you need in order the answer will be better.   In order to determine the criminal liability of Roxy it is necessary to consider the actus reus and mens rea of theft as defined by the Theft Act 1968. The actus reus for theft is where a person appropriates property belonging to another. The mens rea element of the offence is committed when it can be shown that the property was obtained dishonestly with the intention of permanently depriving the owner any rights over the property. This is listed in s1 TA 1968. There is no requirement that the intention of the person stealing the item is doing so with the intention of making a gain from taking the item1. The court will not consider the appropriation to be dishonest if the person taking the item can show that they believed that had the right to take the item2. This would also be the case if the person taking the item believed that the owner of the property would give their consent to take the item3. Appropriation has been defined under s3(1) of the 1968 Act, which makes it clear that if the person taking the item assumes the rights of an owner over the property this will amount to appropriation4. Under s4(1) property has been defined as ‘money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’. Land can only be stolen in certain circumstances, but there is no need to discuss this in the case of Roxy. Possession of property is defined as ‘belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having any proprietary right or interest5’ in the property. Even if the person taking the item does not intend to permanently deprive the owner ownership of the property, such intention can be inferred if the person taking the item treats the item as their own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights6. Having considered how the Theft Act defines theft it is now possible to consider the actions of Roxy in each of the above situations and determine ant charges she might face. In order to do this it is necessary to consider the Ghosh test. In R v Ghosh [1982]7 the court stated that in order to find the defendant guilty they had to consider whether his conduct was dishonest. This had to be adjudged in relation to the conduct of an honest and reasonable person8. In most cases the dishonesty is apparent and the test is automatically satisfied. However, in some cases the jury will also have to consider whether the defendant realised that their actions were dishonest by the standard of the reasonable and honest man. This is particularly important in relation to the money from the shop, as Roxy might not consider it to be theft as it was an error on the part of the shopkeeper which resulted in her being given too much change.   With regard to the library book it has been stated that it was Roxy’s intention to permanently deprive the library of the book by stealing it. However, since the book was replaced back on the shelf it is unlikely that she would be charged with theft as she did not carry out the actus reus for the offence. In R v Easom [1971]9 Lord Scarman stated that In every case of theft the appropriation must be accompanied by the intention of permanently depriving the owner of his property. What may be loosely described as a 'conditional' appropriation will not do. If the appropriator has it in mind merely to deprive the owner of such of his property as, on examination, proves worth taking and then, finding that the booty is valueless to the appropriator, leaves it ready to hand to be repossessed by the owner, the appropriator has not stolen." In this case the defendant had made a search of a handbag in a cinema, which was attached to the wrist of a police officer. The intention of the defendant was to take items from the handbag, however, nothing was stolen and the defendant was acquitted. Similarly in Eddy v Niman [1981]10 the defendant was found not guilty despite the fact that they had removed items off the shelf with the intention of stealing them. As the trolley was not take from the shop no theft had occurred. In relation to the money from the newsagent, she lacks the necessary mens rea for the offence as she did not intend to take the money. However, once she became aware of the fact that the shopkeeper had given her too much money the mens rea for the offence of appropriation is complete if she decides not to return the money to the shop11. If she had been to several shops and was unsure as to which shop had given her too much change she would not be guilty of an offence as she would not reasonably be able to identify the true owner of the property in order to return it12. Also, if she was not aware of the overpayment until a considerable time later it is unlikely that she would be found guilty of theft13. When considering the rent given to her by her sister, she knew that this was specifically for the rent, and so by spending the money on shoes the court might determine that she has stolen it14. However, the court would have to prove that Roxy intended to permanently deprive her sister of this money. If the rent was not due for quite some time after Ronnie had given her the money, Roxy could argue that so long as the rent was paid on time and she replaced the money used that there is no proof of a permanent intention to deprive, although in R v Velumyl [1989]15 the court held that if the exact same coins and money given were not handed over this could amount to a theft. In relation to the bracelet, Roxy was aware that Trisha would not lend her this. By taking it without her consent the actus reus of the offence is complete. Although Roxy states that it was not her intention to permanently deprive Trisha of the bracelet, the pawning of the item amounts to Roxy acting as though she has rights over the property16. In R v Lloyd, Bhuee & Ali [1985]17 the court ruled that the borrowing of an item could amount to outright theft if the property was not returned at the agreed time. From the above it is likely that Roxy would be found guilty of theft in relation to the bracelet, and possibly the money from the shop. It is unlikely that she would face any charges in relation to the library book as she did not complete the actus reus of the offence by taking the book from the property. Similarly with the rent money, she would only be charged with theft if she was unable to repay the amount spent when the rent was due to be paid18. Bibliography Cook, K, James, M, and Lee, R, Core Statutes on Criminal Law, 2006-2007, Law Matters Publishing Elliott, C & Quinn, F, (2000), Criminal Law, 3rd Ed, Pearson Education Glanville Williams, (1983), Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd Ed, London: Stevens & Sons Glazebrook, P R, (2001), Statutes on Criminal Law, 10th Ed, Blackstone Press Limited Herring, J, (2005), Criminal Law, 4th Ed, Palgrave Macmillan Law Masters Huxley, P, & O’Connell, M, Statutes on Evidence, 5th Ed, Blackstone’s Inns of Court School of Law, (2003), Criminal Litigation & Sentencing, Oxford University Press Murphy, P, (2002), Blackstone’s Criminal Practice, Oxford University Press Reed, A, & Fitzpatrick, B, (2009), Criminal Law, 4th Ed, Sweet & Maxwell Smith, J.C. and Hogan, B, (2002), Criminal Law, 7th Ed, London: Butterworths Smith & Hogan, (2005), Criminal Law, 11th Ed, Oxford University Press Read More