theft act
Jo can be charged with theft under sec1(1) Theft Act 1968 when she altered the price label of a bottle if jam. Penalty is maximum 7 years imprisonment.
AR is appropriate property belonging to another. Under sec3(1) any assumption of the rights of the owner amounts to appropriation. Here, Jo had assume the rights of the owner by altering the price label of the bottle of jam. (Pilgren v Rice Smith).
Further, where D comes by property without stealing it, any later assumptions of the owner would amount to appropriation sec3(1). There still can be appropriation even though the owner had consented. ( R v Gomez ).
MR is D must be dishonestly and intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Here, Jo clearly had the said intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property as he altered the price label of the bottle of jam.
Jo will not be able to rely on sec2(1). Here, Jo may alleged that he was not dishonest under sec2(1)(b) as he believed (an honest belief) that the owner would consent to the appropriation however, she would not succeed as there were ('express instruction') to the contrary. Failing this, the test in (Gosh) applies. The test is (i) was D dishonest by these standards.
Here, it maybe argued that D was dishonest by the test because he would .....
Section 22 Theft Act
When Jo receives the ham from the assistant, he can be charged for receiving stolen goods - sec 22 Theft Act 1968. Penalty is maximum 14 years imprisonment.
The goods must be 'stolen'. Goods are deemed to be stolen if they are obtained contrary to section 1, section 15 and section 21 Theft Act 1968. sec 24(1) and sec24(4) Theft Act 1968. Here, if the assistant is guilty of theft, then the ham is deemed to be stolen.
All forms of handling other than arranging to receive or receiving stolen goods must be done for the 'benefit of another person'. Since it is charged with receiving stolen goods, though he is doing it for his own benefit, it would be guilty.
All forms of handling must be done 'otherwise than in the cause of stealing'. Theft continues as long as appropriation. Continuing appropriation applies today. ( R v Hale, R v Lockley ) if so when the assistant under price the ham and handed it to Jo the appropriation is still continuing, therefore it cannot be charged as a handler but with theft.
MR is knowledge or belief that the goods is stolen (subjective test - R v Lincoln, R v Stagg , Griffiths ) and dishonesty. Here, as Jo knows that the ham was underpriced, he would be guilty.
Section 1 of Theft Act.
When Jo receive the ham from the assistant, he can be charged with theft under sec 1 Theft Act 1968. the facts are similar to Kaur v Chief Constable for Hampshire. However, in the latter case, D was charged with theft after he left check-out counter. He was found not guilty of theft as the property of the goods had passed to him at the check out counter under the voidable contract. But later in R v Morris, Lord Lane in CA who had decided Kaur's case earlier stated that the case was wrongly decided. He said that could be appropriation by simply selecting the underpriced goods. The HL in morris did not comment on this. Therefore, here when Jo received the ham there can be appropriation.
However, Jo may applied that he was not dishonest as he believe he had a legal right to the property (ham)- sec 2(1)(a). Failing which the test in R v Gosh applies.
Attempt.
when Jo take the underpriced ham from the assistant, he can be charged with attempting to obtain property by deception - sec1(1) Criminal Attempt Act 1981. the AR is Jo must have done an act more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. This term is not defined in the act. In Giggs it was held that D must be in the process of committing the offence and not merely getting ready. Here, it maybe argued that Jo is merely getting ready.
MR is Jo must intend to commit the full offence sec1(1) CAA ( r v Pearman).
Section 15 Theft Act 1968.
At the check-out, Jo can be charged with sec 15 Theft Act 1968. Penalty is maximum 10 years imprisonment.
AR is D by deception obtain property belonging to another. There can be deception by conduct sec 15(4). It maybe argued here that by presenting the ham and jam at the check-out counter, Jo was representing by conduct that the goods were correctly priced.
There must be a causal link between the deception and the obtaining of the property. D must have obtain the property as a result of the deception. ( R v Clucas, r Wheeler). Here, the cashier thought the jam and ham is correctly priced.
MR is D must intend to deceive or be reckless (subjective reckless) in doing so. As far for the meat, Jo may not have the said MR as he did not know it was underpriced. As for the ham, as he knew that it was not correctly priced, he had the said intent.
Further, he must be dishonest. The test in Gosh only applies if D thought he was honest but other people would not had thought so. ( R v Price, R v Vasper)
Further, Ho must intent to permanent deprive the owner of the property. Jo clearly had the said intent.
Section 9 of Theft Act.
When Jo entered Keng's store, he could be charged with burglary sec91(1) Theft Act 1968. Penalty is maximum 10 years imprisonment as the store is not a dwelling.
AR is D have entered the building or part of a building as a trespasser. A trespasser is a person who has no expressed or implied permission to enter or exceed the express, implied permission granted. Here, Jo is a trespasser as the implied permission given by the owner was to shop whereas Jo entered the store intending to steal the ham and jam, and thereby he had exceeded implied permission granted.
MR is intention to enter as a trespasser or reckless (subjective reckless) in doing so. Here, Jo clearly had the said intent. Further, Jo must intent to commit one of the offences in sec9(1)(b), one of which is an intention to steal. Here, Jo clearly had the said intent to steal as he entered the store intending to steal something.
Checklist (a) conditional intent is sufficient (AG's Reference) (No 1 & 2 of 1979)
(b) even if the goods or item not there, he is still guilty, essence of the offence is defendant's state of mind at the time of the entry.
Section 1 (1) Theft Act
When Jo left the check-out, he can be charged with theft- sec 1(1) Theft Act 1968. Even though the cashier consented to Jo taking the ham and jam, there can be appropriation ( R v Gomez). If the goods had not passed to Jo, it would still belong to the shop owner sec(5)(1). However, Jo may alleged that the property in the goods had passed to him when he paid for it. However, under sec 5(4) if a person obtain properties as a result of the owner's mistake, and he is under an obligation (legal obligation - R v Gilks). To restore the property, then the property should be regarded as belonging to the owner (Maynes v Cooper). Therefore, here the property in the ham and jam would still belong to the shop keeper.
Jo may allege that he was not dishonest under sec 2(1)(a). failing which the test in R v Gosh applies.
Section 3 Theft Act 1978
When Jo left the check-out, he could not be charged under sec3 Theft Act 1978. Penalty is
It must be proved that Jo makes off without having paid as required or expected : makes off means that D must have left the spot where payment is due, have it being the check-out counter.
As Jo paid a lesser sum for the ham and jam, he has not paid as required or expected of him.
The MR is D must know that payment on the spot is required or expected of him. D must intent to make default (permanent default - Allen) and must be dishonest.
Make Money Online
This article is copyright
