Criminal Law: Analysis of Liability in Theft Assignment Sample

Introduction Of Criminal Law: Analysis of Liability in Theft and Damage Cases

The cases of criminal liability in the UK are increasing significantly. The study will provide demonstrate the different actus reus and men's reus elements of the activities that were carried out by Paula and Harriet. The study will indicate a detailed analysis of their deeds against the clauses of Theft Law 1968 and Criminal Damage Act 1971 in UK.

Requirements of Criminal Liability

Criminal liability is referred to as the responsibility of an individual when the driving force of committing such malice is influenced by the advents of criminal intent as opposed to the existence of an inadvertent act (Soltani and Ramazani, 2016). An individual can be deemed criminally liable if the following three conditions are met. Firstly, the defendant must perpetrate guilty conduct, which is represented by the actus reus. Secondly, the defendant should possess a guilty state of mind, which is characterized by the mens rea. Thirdly, there should be no existence of valid defence. These aspects need to be addressed while discussing the criminal liability of Harriet and Paula. According to, mens rea is defined as the mental state of the individual while committing the crime. The principle behind this crime is that the crime can be done by malicious intentions or inadvertent actions. According to the actus, reus is explained as the physical actions of committing the crime. It is understood by the fact that the implications of criminal offence often lead to adverse impact on the individual's perceptions.

Are tight deadlines leaving you anxious? Turn to New Assignment Help for prompt assistance! Our experienced team provides unmatched assignment writing services in the UK, helping you achieve academic excellence. Check out our free assignment samples for a taste of our expertise.

Criminal liability for Laura

As per S. (1) 1 of Theft law 1968, the actus reus of theft is comprised of three elements which involve the appropriate, property and belonging to others. In S. (1) 1, the appropriation is defined as “Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amount to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner” (Gov, 2023). This clause is met by Paula's action as she assumes the handbag as her own property and justifies the action by stating that she should as fortunate as Paula. Similar instances of appropriation is witnessed in the case of R vs Morris [1983] as the owner assumed he can do anything with the prices as the products were being sold from his store and stole money from the customers (E-law resources, 2023). The property in the Theft Law 1968 is explained as “Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”. This element is also addressed by Paula's behaviour as the bag falls under the category of personal property. This aspect was also observed in the case of R v Ghosh [1982] as the doctor stole money from the client in the pretext of providing false surgery. Therefore, it is observed that the second element of the actus reus for theft is also met by Paula's actions. Furthermore, subsection (4) within the S. (1) 1 of Theft Law 1968 provides a clear definition of the belonging to others. It defines that “Where a person receives property from or on account of another and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other” (Gov, 2023). Paula's act violates the above clause as Christine received it from another person as gift so she is the solitary owner of the handbag and it is a criminal offence if any other person other than the sender or receiver, retains it without their consent. In the case of Wheatley vs another [2006], the court found Wheatley guilty of being civil servants and stealing money from a senior citizen with limited intelligence. Therefore, the act reus requirement for theft is attained by the activities of Paula.

Men's reus for theft is defined by the purpose element in “Theft Act 1968”. In the case of Paula, she stole the bag with malicious intent, which was driven by jealousy and she knew that Christine would feel bad after losing her gift. This coincides with the knowledge element of the mens reus as it indicates that the individual is certain that their actions would result in emotionally scarring Christine. Similar observations can be reflected in the case of R vs Morris [1983] as the defendant switched the price labels intentionally to obtain the results of duping the clients and gain higher profit margin. This was in strict violation of s 20 (2). of the “Theft Act 1968” as it indicates that “A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, destroys, defaces or conceals any valuable security, shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years” (Gov. 2023). Furthermore, the mens reus of robbery in “Theft Act 1968” is explained by the dishonesty and primary intention to deprive. It aligns with the crime of Paula as she stole the bag by keeping it hidden in the car, which defines dishonesty and her intention was to make feel Christine that she should not feel so fortunate to be showered with luxury gifts, which highlights the intention to make her feel deprived. Therefore, the mens rea requirement and the second requirement for criminal liability for Paula in this case are met. There is no instance of valid defence on Paula's part. Hence, Paula is criminally liable under “Theft Act 1968” as all the three requirements of criminal liability is addressed by Paula's act of stealing the bag.

Criminal liability of Harriet

Harriet's conduct will be charged under damage to property. The actus reus elements for the property damage are categorized by the presence of conduct, circumstance and result. In accordance with the clause under Section 1(1) “Criminal Damage Act 1971”, the conduct element of actus reus is the damage to property in the absence of lawful excuse. This is met by Harriet's actions as she has destroyed the large glass windowpanes of Christine's house, which indicates property damage, in the context of hallucination where she thought of a fire engulfing the entire house, which does not evolve as a lawful excuse. Analogous instances are witnessed in the case of Gayford v Shoulder [1898] as the defendant was punished for trampling along the long grass of the victim's garden and was convicted for property damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (Allen and Cooper, 1995). Furthermore, the circumstance element of the actus reus indicates if the property belongs to any individual except the defendant. In this case, this element is met as the defendant (Paula) has destroyed Christine's house, who is not the defendant. The last component is the result, which indicates that the integrity of the property is compromised due to the damage. This criterion is also addressed by Paula's action as the smashing of the windows has reduced their home structural integrity to the extreme and has also rendered them susceptible to robbery, thereby, comprising their security. Therefore, all the actus reus requirements for damage to property has been met by Harriet's actions.

According to the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the mens reus for the damage to property defines that the defendant is deemed to be reckless if the damage would be incurred on property belonging to other by their action. According to the section 1(1) and (3) of the CDA 1971, “A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence” (Ormerod and Laird, 2018). Asimilarverdictwas passed in the case of R v G and another [2003]as two kids were deemed reckless when they lit two newspapers and burnt the co-op shop (Parliament, 2023). The verdict charged them with damage to property according to Criminal Damage Act 1971 as it caused damage of more than £1m. In this case, Paula acted recklessly as she understood the risk of fire to be substantial enough to deviate from her normal action of walking out the door to smash the window as a means of escape. Therefore, it is observed that the men's requirements for property damage are met by Harriet's actions.

However, the third requirement for criminal liability is not met as she can use the instance of Leon spiking her drink with vodka as a valid defence. It is because her reckless behaviour was not intentional; instead, it was caused due to the malicious intent of Leon. Therefore, Harriet' actions are not criminally liable since only two of the three requirements of criminal liability are met by Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Your Success is Our Priority! At New Assignment Help, we prioritize your success by delivering exceptional Criminal Law Assignment Help. Our team of experts is committed to providing you with the guidance and resources needed to excel academically. Don't let challenges hold you back—choose New Assignment Help for a brighter future!

Conclusion

From the report, it is observed that the actus reus and mens reus requirements have been attained by Paula's act of stealing the handbag. The findings indicate that Paula is criminally liable under the “Theft Act 1968”. The results also suggest that Harriet could provide a valid defence that could oppose the actus reus and mens reus requirements for property damage. From the study, it is concluded that Harriet's action cannot be considered a criminal offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

References

• Allen, M.J. and Cooper, S., 1995. Howard's Way-A Farewell to Freedom.
• E-law resources. 2023. R v Morris, Anderton v Burnside. Available at: https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Morris%2C-Anderton-v-Burnside.php (Accessed: 5 July 2023).
• Gov. 2023. Theft Act 1968 Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/20#:~:text=(1)A%20person%20who%20dishonestly,of%20justice%20or%20any%20government (Accessed 7 July 2023)
• Gov. 2023. Theft Act 1968 Available at:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-oftheft#:~:text=3%E2%80%9CAppropriates%E2%80%9D.&text=(1)Any%20assumption%20by%20a,dealing%20with%20it%20as%20owner (Accessed 7 July 2023)
• Ormerod, D., and Laird, K. 2018. 27. Offences of property damage. Available at: 10.1093/he/9780198807094.003.0027
• Parliament. 2023. Judgments - Regina v. G and another (Appellants) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd031016/g-1.htm (Accessed 7 July 2023)
• Soltani, S. and Ramazani, A., 2016. Criminal Liability and Crime and Punishment Proportionality in the Crime of Legal Entities.J. Pol. & L.,9, p.61.