• 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)

    So if murder is defined by cases, then why not continue changing it with cases, instead of waiting for parliament to pass a statute which by the time it has been passed will be out of date anyway? If murder has always been defined by cases, at what point did

  2. Law A2 unit 4 murder problem answer plan

    For is an assault criminal enough to cause death of another - and under normal circumstances the victim probably wouldn't have died just from the fear of injury from another. For if the river hadn't been there, Derek would have probably been still alive - so it could be said

  1. Law - Unit 3 - Mock Exam Question

    There are three different types of mens rea. Firstly, direct intention where the result was the defendants aim or desire. For example A shoots B because he wants to kill him. Secondly, indirect intention where the accused did not desire a particular result but, in acting as he or she did, realised to the point of virtual certainty that it might occur.

  2. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    cause as in Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital where even if the doctor had seen the patient he would still have died from the arsenic poisoning. Where there is more than one cause of the outcome then it must be proven that it is an actual cause and not

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

    However, the importance of Burgess is questionable, due to the decisions of other cases since 1991. In practice, any act done whilst sleepwalking should only be able to use the defence of insanity, not automatism. But in the case of Ecott 2007, the defendant raped a 15 year old girl whilst sleepwalking.

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

    Each member of the conspiracy is liable for all crimes committed by other members of the conspiracy. Withdrawal from the conspiracy after an overt act has been committed is no defense. Conspiracy is a crime that requires more acts than solicitation does, but it does not require the defendant to

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