• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

A2 Law-making off without payment from a taxi.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Tajinder Singh Ranshi A2 Law ? Making Off Without Payment Discuss the criminal liability of Armani? Armani may have committed the offence of making off without payment. This offence is set out in Section 3 of the Theft Act 1978. The actus reus for the offence is the defendant must have made off, there must be goods which have been supplied or a service has been done, payment is required on the spot and the defendant has not paid as required. The mens rea is that they must have acted dishonest, they had knowledge that payment was required on the spot and there was intention to avoid payment. The first stage of the actus reus is making off. This means that the defendant leaves a place where payment is required. This was highlighted in the case of McDavitt where in the lp we were told that the defendant had not made off as he had not left the restaurant. ...read more.

Middle

This hereby satisfies the second point in the actus reus. We then move onto payment required. This payment is on the spot payment. In order to establish whether this offence has been committed it must have been proven that payment was required or expected. In the case of Vincent there was an agreement between the d and the owners of the hotels where he would pay them when he could. Since there was an agreement not to expect the on the spot payment then this offence hasn?t been committed. But looking to the scenario it is clear that an agreement hadn?t been made and with the manner in which the d got off it is clear that he had no intention to pay. Finally we must consider whether the fee was not paid. The defendant was obliged to pay the amount due. ...read more.

Conclusion

Unless d is from a foreign country in which you do not need to be paying for taxi journeys, he should have realised that what he did was dishonest. But otherwise if he had no knowledge of what had to be done then he would not have committed an offence. Finally we must consider whether there was an intention to avoid payment. There must be a clear intention to permanently avoid the payment. It is clear that there is an intention to avoid payment in the manner of which the defendant left the taxi. It is clear that by jumping out of a taxi and then running off there was an intention not to pay the fare for the journey. If convicted of the offence of making off without payment D could face up to 2years and 6 months in prison as well as having to pay a fine or having to serve out a community order. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critical evaluation of murder for A2 law unit 4

    3 star(s)

    he had intention to cause grievous bodily harm and actually causes the victims death. In some of these cases the defendant may not even realise that death could occur. Yet he is just as guilty as the man who sets out to kill his victim intentionally.

  2. Law - Unit 3 - Mock Exam Question

    For s.18 OAPA the actus reus is the same as s.20 however to fulfil the mens rea the defendant must have the intention to wound or cause grievous bodily harm. It is clear that Reg intended to cause grevious bodily harm on his victim so he would most likely be liable for section 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

  1. Law A2 unit 4 murder problem answer plan

    he made the decision to jump in to the river to avoid this from occurring - even though he knew that he could not swim and drowned as a result of those actions. In Church (1965) the CA laid down an objective test for dangerousness for a verdict of manslaughter

  2. Nina runs a burger bar. She puts up a sign in the window saying ...

    discovered by taking reasonable steps", again there is insufficient information to determine Prafal's views, it may have appeared to have been abandoned. However, since he returned it the next day it would appear that neither part (a) or (c) are true and that he knowingly took someone else's property.

  1. List and explain the six most important cases for the law on insanity, explaining ...

    Windle (1952) The third element of the M?Naghten rules is that the defendant must not know the nature and quality of the act. The defendant could know that his act is legally wrong, morally wrong, both morally and legally wrong.

  2. The History and Main Features of Criminal Law in the USA.

    Assaultis a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence.In some jurisdictions assault is defined as the threat of bodily harm that reasonably causes fear of harm in the victim while battery is the actual physical impact on another person.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work