Liability for theft

August 17, 2017 Law

A and B entered the store to steal intoxicant giving rise to liability for burglary reverse tosubdivision 9 ( 1 ) ( a )of theTheft Act 1968[ 1 ] which defines burglary as entry into a edifice as a intruder intending,inter alia, to steal. The store is a edifice and their presence therein indicates that A and B have entered it therefore liability hinges upon whether they are intruders. The implied invitation extended by stores applies to lawful clients non persons intent upon larceny and persons who enter in surplus of the permission granted are intruders. [ 2 ] Accordingly, A and B are intruders every bit shortly as they enter the store meaning to steal and their liability for subdivision 9 ( 1 ) ( a ) burglary arises at this point irrespective of whether they really go on to perpetrate larceny.

Once within the store, A and B put bottles of intoxicant in their bag which may give rise to burglary contrary tosubdivision 9 ( 1 ) ( B )as they have entered a edifice as intruders ( as established above ) and committed larceny.

Larceny is the dishonest appropriation of belongings belonging to another with purpose to for good strip. [ 3 ] Theactus reusof larceny is appropriation of belongings belonging to another and is satisfied by the intervention with the bottles ( belongings ) belonging to the store. Appropriation is an premise of the rights of the proprietor, irrespective of any consent to this premise. [ 4 ] A and B assume the rights of the proprietor by managing the bottles and puting them in their bag, something merely the proprietor has the right to make, therefore fulfilling theactus reusof larceny. Their purpose to take and devour the intoxicant establishes an purpose to for good deprive therefore the concluding component to be established is dishonesty.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Section 2 provides that a individual is non dishonorable if they believe that they are entitled to the belongings. [ 5 ] If A believes she is entitled to take belongings as she is owed money by the store, an honestly-held belief [ 6 ] to this consequence means that she is non dishonorable. [ 7 ] However, she must believe that she is lawfully, instead than morally, entitled to the belongings. Furthermore, she hides when she sees a guard which suggests consciousness that her behavior is non honorable. Therefore, the dishonesty of A and B will be determined by theGhoshtrial which asks whether the behavior is dishonorable harmonizing to the ‘ordinary criterions of sensible and honorable people’ and, if so, whether the suspect realised this. [ 8 ] Reasonable and honest people are likely to see the furtive remotion of belongings from a store as dishonest and A and B’s efforts to hedge the guard indicate consciousness of this therefore fulfilling the dishonesty demand of larceny and finishing their liability for larceny and burglary.

If A and B moved into an country restricted to staff whilst hedging the guard, this would amount to a ‘part of a building’ [ 9 ] for the intents of burglary. [ 10 ] However, they did so in order to avoid sensing instead than to steal, perpetrate condemnable harm or cause GBH hence no farther liability for burglary arises.

A may be apt for larceny and therefore subdivision 9 ( 1 ) ( B ) burglary in relation to the cooky. It is belongings belonging to the store and A has appropriated it by picking it up. It is likely that she intends to for good strip the store of it by eating it. It is ill-defined whether she intends to pay for it ; if non, she will be dishonest and apt for larceny and burglary.

When they are approached by the guard, B produces a knife which horrifies A. This suggests that she is incognizant that B was armed and had non contemplated the usage of a arm. B strikes the guard rendering him unconscious momently therefore may be apt for assault occasioning existent bodily injury [ 11 ] or wounding/GBH depending upon the quantification of the injury caused to the guard. [ 12 ] If the hurt sum to dangerous, as opposed to existent, bodily injury, this will give rise to farther liability for burglary as B entered the edifice as a intruder and has caused GBH. [ 13 ] Transient loss of consciousness is more likely to amount to ABH, nevertheless, therefore no farther liability for burglary will originate. [ 14 ] Theactus reusof subdivision 47 is satisfied by the battery involved in the imposition of the blow and the attendant loss of consciousness. Thework forces rearelates to the battery merely [ 15 ] and is satisfied as the blow was calculated hence the battery knowing therefore liability for subdivision 47 is established.

More earnestly, B may be apt for robbery. [ 16 ] Although robbery requires that force is used ‘before or in order to steal’ , it has been held that appropriation is a go oning act therefore force used instantly after larceny in order to consequence an flight and successfully finish the larceny will do. Consequently, B’s blow to the guard in order to get away with the intoxicant may give rise to liability for robbery. [ 17 ]

Although A did non strike the guard, she may incur liability for subdivision 47 and robbery as a consequence of B’s liability. B committed these offenses during a joint endeavor ; those who embark upon a common program are apt for the offenses of others unless there is a sudden unexpected going from the program. [ 18 ] A and B agreed to steal belongings therefore A may reason that she did non expect this would ensue in force and that the original program would non hold resulted in any hurt. Her horror-stricken reaction to production of the knife suggests that she was incognizant of its presence but the hurt was finally inflicted by the stolen bottle. A’s liability will hinge upon whether she was cognizant that B was predisposed towards force, perchance based upon cognition of B’s repute for wrangling. [ 19 ]

In decision, A will be apt for at least two counts of burglary originating from her ain behavior and may incur farther liability if B’s behavior was non an unexpected going from the common program. B will be apt for burglary and larceny every bit good as assault on the guard and robbery.

Word count: 1000 words

Case List

DPPV.Gomez[ 1993 ] AC 442

RoentgenV.Ghosh[ 1982 ] QB 1053

RoentgenV.Hale( 1978 ) 68 Cr App R 415

RoentgenV.Holden[ 1991 ] Crim LR 478

RoentgenV.Jones and Smith[ 1976 ] 3 All ER 54

RoentgenV.Powell;RoentgenV.English[ 1997 ] 3 WLR 959

RoentgenV.Robinson[ 1977 ] Crim LR 173

RoentgenV.Savage[ 1992 ] 1 AC 699

RoentgenV.Uddin[ 1999 ] Crim LR 987

RoentgenV.Walkington[ 1979 ] 2 All ER 716

ThymineV.DPP[ 2003 ] Crim LR 622


Allen, M. , ( 2003 )Textbook on Criminal Law, 7Thursdayed. , Oxford: Oxford University Press

Clarkson, C.M.V. and Keating, H.M. , ( 2003 )Condemnable Law: Text and Materials, 5Thursdayed. , London: Sweet & A ; Maxwell

Herring, J. , ( 2004 )Condemnable Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Padfield, N. , ( 2004 )Condemnable Law, 4Thursdayed. , Oxford: Clarendon Law Press

Smith, J.C. , ( 2005 )The Law of Theft, 8Thursdayed. , Oxford: Oxford University Press



I'm Amanda

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out