did as dishonest?” (subjective). Taking the bike would be dishonest by the standards of ordinary people, and if Debbie believed that it was her sister’s, why did she dump the bike so Sally could collect it later. Therefore, the dishonest element of robbery has been established and taking the bike(borrowing) amounts to permanently depriving S6(1)
The last MR is ‘use of force in order to steal’ . The intention to steal with the use of force/threatening force must be intended by the defendant. Debbie threatened Sally when she was challenged by Sally when taking the bike. If Sally did not let, go Debbie intended to ‘smack her around the head’.
All the elements of robbery have been established. So, Debbie would be found guilty of robbery.
Debbie
…show more content…
She exceeds her permission to enter and becomes a trespasser (Debbie’s main purpose was to steal), and by stealing the camera she is guilty of a S9(1)(a) and S9(1)(b) .
The common AR for the 2 offences are ‘entry’, ‘as a trespasser’ and ‘any building or part of building’. The only element that separates them is S9(1)(a) requires that the defendant entered with intent to commit one of the offences S9(2) (steal, inflict GBH, unlawful damage) S9(1)(b) requires that the defendant committed theft or inflicted GBH . ‘The reasoning beyond this is that a defendant who enters a building not intending to commit an offence but once inside decides to do so’.
S9 does not define entry, so the jury decide. The case of R v. Collins stated entry needed to be ‘effective and substantial’, which was later changed to ‘effective entry’ in R v. Brown .Debbie, made an effective entry, when she entered Brendon’s flat after accepting the invitation for
…show more content…
This is not defined in the Theft Act 1968, so criminal law uses the same principles of civil law. ‘A trespasser is a person who lacks either express or implied permission to enter’ . Even though Debbie had permission to enter from Brandon, she had the intention to steal anything of value upon entry, so exceeds permission.
The last AR ‘building or part of a building’. A building is not defined in the Theft Act 1968, but a building is perceived as a ‘permanent structure’ . Debbie entered the flat which is a building. The AR is evident.
The MR for S9(1)(a) is the ‘intention to commit an ulterior offence’. Theft is an ulterior offence . Theft is defined in Theft Act 1968 S1 as appropriation of property, belonging to another, dishonesty with the intention to permanently deprive’. Debbie intended to steal from Brandon (dishonesty)appropriation (taking the camera) property (camera)belonging to another (Brandon) with the intention to permanently deprive (Debbie intended keeping the camera). So, by entering intending to steal was an ulterior offence. The MR is evident for a S9(1)(a)
The MR factor is ‘intention/recklessness as a trespasser’ the defendant must know they are a trespasser. Debbie knew she was doing wrong, exceeded permission and became a
...ng away of someone else's property without the consent of the owner and with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently, Fletch knowingly takes both food and drink from Mr. Underhill, without intent of paying it back or giving it to Mr. Underhill.
Duty: The general rule for premises liability is that there is a duty to keep the premises in reasonably safe conditions. Vicky was a trespasser on the land because she had no express or implied consent to be there. In light of this relationship, because Vicky was a trespasser, under the traditional common law categories, there is no duty but to not willfully or wantonly harm the trespasser.
the principle for the theft of the stolen vehicle, because he is the one operating the vehicle. Class I
344. The. Australian Institute of Criminology, [Online]. Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/C/5/%7B0C5DFDDF-7A72-43F9-80A1-CA6D51B635B6%7Dtandi344.pdf, [Accessed 14 April 2011].
Under common law some many years ago, burglary was the breaking and entering of a dwelling during the night for the purposes of committing a felony or a larceny (Bernasco and Luykx 2003). Under common law, there were a couple reasons for this specific definition of burglary. First, as Bernasco put it, breaking is the act of creating an opening by disabling any part of the dwelling meant to serve as a prevention tool against intrusion. Secondly, nighttime was an important element of burglary by common law standards; law-makers viewed people as unable to protect themselves during the middle of the night. Under common law, it was not enough to merely enter a dwelling, the act of breaking had to exist; if the entry occurs through an unlocked door, then burgl...
N.C.G. S. (n.d.). § 14-72. Larceny of property; receiving stolen goods or possessing stolen goods.
It all started on the evening of December 7, 1982. A young waitress in her twenties, named Debbie Carter, had taken off of her shift early at a local Ada bar. She proceeded to enjoy a few drinks with several old high school friends before heading home shortly after midnight. Debbie was last seen having a confrontation with a man who was a regular at the bars as she got into her vehicle. The waitress’s friends had asked her to come join a group of them going to back to one of the friend’s houses to continue the hanging out; Debbie declined, but about 2:30a.m., her friend, Gina received two calls back to back from Debbie. Through all the n...
In the past, according to the online Wikipedia encyclopedia, the common law definition of burglary, was breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with an intent to commit a felony therein. In the present, according to criminal.findlaw.com, the modern common law definition of burglary, is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door. The Criminal law hand book written by Paul Bergman and Sara Berman states that the law has changed because burglary laws were more rigid, and they required the government to prove that a defendant at night forced open a door, a window, or some other part of a building to gain entry before it was called burglary. Unlike the present, going into a building any time of the day without consent through an open window or an unlocked door constitutes a break and entry for purposes of almost all burglary statutes. Even a partial entry can constitute a burglary.
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
He had a revolver in his hand, but he did not point it at them.
Individuals have been taught from a youthful age that taking things that do not belong to them is wrong. From first discovering this and growing into young adults’ people become well informed that not only is it wrong but it is considered a crime. The justice system has dictated what makes up a crime and the elements that follow it. It has also outlined how to punish individuals based on the crimes they commit. Sometimes people mistakenly mix up crimes that seem closely related but based on further evidence are obviously different. Two crimes commonly mistaken because they are relatively close in terms is theft and shoplifting.
Burglary is typically recognized, from a legal perspective, as the unauthorized entry into any type of structure. A common misconception is that the crime of burglary is specific to breaking into a home or business; however, this is not the case. Moreover, for a burglary to occur there is no need for a physical breaking and entering, in fact, a burglary can be committed by an individual simply trespassing and walking into a structure through an open door. “Most states and the Model Penal Code use the same basic definition of burglary and incorporate the same three basic elements of which include the unauthorized breaking and entry into a building or occupied structure with the intent to commit a crime inside” (Reuters, 2013).
Theft of property that is more than $500 but less than $10,000 is a Class 3 felony. A Class 3 felony has a punishment of two to five years and a fine up to $25,000, plus restitution must be paid for the losses due to the theft.
... there are four that fall into this category: burglary, breaking and entering with the intent to steal, arson, the burning of someone’s property, larceny-theft, taking property from another, and motor vehicle theft, the stealing of a land vehicle. Thieves and burglars sometimes use other people as a way to turn stolen goods into profit, an example of this is fences, who are people that distribute stolen goods.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014). Cyber Crime. Retrieved March 8, 2014, from The Federal Bureau of Investigation: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/cyber