Analyse the law on theft, robbery and burglary in a given scenario providing a reasoned conclusion.
Referring to the case of Mr Paul Anthony and Mr Simon Jackson, both defendants would be liable to be found guilty on some grounds of the Theft Act (1968):
Mr Anthony would most likely be found guilty for burglary under section 9, as burglary falls under a lot more than entering a building and stealing something. It’s definition being ‘he enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit any such offence, of stealing anything in the building or part of the building in question..” or “having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building of part of …show more content…
In order to be guilty of theft a person must have dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Property under this act covers personal property, meaning items belonging personally to someone or business etc. this has been appropriated in this case as the defendant has done something with the property that only the owner has the right to do.; by stealing and taking the vase as his own, Mr Anthony has appropriated this item as only the owner had the right to do this. He then had intention to permanently deprive, under section 6(1) it claims that within theft there must be intention to treat the item as your own and dispose of it regardless of the owner’s rights. It can be found that the defendant has done this as he placed the vase into the rucksack therefore treating is as his own. This can be found in DPP v Lavender (1994) in which D took a door from his council flat and moved it to another house, he was found guilty of theft as the court stated that ‘disposal’ includes ‘dealing with property as though it was your …show more content…
A person is found guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force, as stated under section 8 (1) of the Theft Act 1968. The defendant had actus reus as he used force at the time of stealing the wallet which could have subjected the victim to fear. As well as this he had mens rea as he intended to use this threat of force in order to commit the crime. Although ‘force’ is not defined in the act itself it is noted that the force must be sufficient to be noticeable, but not necessarily to the victim; the victim himself may not have felt fear during this time but whether or not he was in fear does not mean that Mr Jackson did not attempt to put him in fear, as it is the defendant’s intention that matters more than the emotional state of the victim. This made a needed connection between the force and the theft, as the force or threat of force must be used in order to steal for a conviction of
Referring to the case of Mr Paul Anthony and Mr Simon Jackson, both defendants would be liable to be found guilty on some grounds of the Theft Act (1968):
Mr Anthony would most likely be found guilty for burglary under section 9, as burglary falls under a lot more than entering a building and stealing something. It’s definition being ‘he enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit any such offence, of stealing anything in the building or part of the building in question..” or “having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building of part of …show more content…
In order to be guilty of theft a person must have dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Property under this act covers personal property, meaning items belonging personally to someone or business etc. this has been appropriated in this case as the defendant has done something with the property that only the owner has the right to do.; by stealing and taking the vase as his own, Mr Anthony has appropriated this item as only the owner had the right to do this. He then had intention to permanently deprive, under section 6(1) it claims that within theft there must be intention to treat the item as your own and dispose of it regardless of the owner’s rights. It can be found that the defendant has done this as he placed the vase into the rucksack therefore treating is as his own. This can be found in DPP v Lavender (1994) in which D took a door from his council flat and moved it to another house, he was found guilty of theft as the court stated that ‘disposal’ includes ‘dealing with property as though it was your …show more content…
A person is found guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force, as stated under section 8 (1) of the Theft Act 1968. The defendant had actus reus as he used force at the time of stealing the wallet which could have subjected the victim to fear. As well as this he had mens rea as he intended to use this threat of force in order to commit the crime. Although ‘force’ is not defined in the act itself it is noted that the force must be sufficient to be noticeable, but not necessarily to the victim; the victim himself may not have felt fear during this time but whether or not he was in fear does not mean that Mr Jackson did not attempt to put him in fear, as it is the defendant’s intention that matters more than the emotional state of the victim. This made a needed connection between the force and the theft, as the force or threat of force must be used in order to steal for a conviction of