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

AQA Law 2007 Problem Question - Graham (Part (b))

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Law Question - June 2007 (b) Discuss the possible criminal liability of Graham for offences arising out of the taking and use of Harry's card and the use of the �200. Graham may be charged with theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. This states that "a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Appropriation is a neutral act, and is "any assumption of the rights of the owner". Only one of the owner's rights, such as touching, using or destroying, needs to be assumed for there to be an appropriation (Morris). A consensual taking can amount to an appropriation (Lawrence, Gomez), and gifts can also be appropriated (Hinks). "Property", defined under section 4, includes money, "personal", "tangible" items and also intangible "things in action" such as bank accounts, shares and trademarks. ...read more.

Middle

When Graham picked up Harry's debit card, there was an appropriation of property belonging to another; the card was re-appropriated when Graham used it in the cash machine. The card belongs to both Harry (the card holder who is in possession and control of it) and the bank, which has a "proprietary right or interest" in it. However, after using the card to withdraw �500, Graham put the card back where he found it. The "goodness and virtue" of the card itself remained unchanged, so he had no intention to permanently deprive (Lloyd and Others). Graham could still be charged with the theft of the �500 from Harry's account. He used Harry's credit card to withdraw the money from the cash machine; there was an appropriation of Harry's bank account (a thing in action, which would amount to property) when he withdrew the money, as taking money out of an account is one of the rights of the owner. ...read more.

Conclusion

In this case, Graham's father "earmarked" the money and specified that it was a present for Graham's son, so Graham was under an obligation to deal with it in a particular way. Graham received the money "on account of" (on behalf of) his son, so the money will be regarded as belonging to his son. Graham appropriated the money when he picked it up; this would amount to property under section 4, and it belonged to Graham's son under section 5(3), so Graham has the actus reus of theft. He may have intended to permanently deprive his son of the money, as he gave it to Earl and treated it as his own to dispose of. Under section 2, none of the three defences apply, so the Ghosh test would be used. Graham gave away his son's present; this would be dishonest by the standards of "reasonable and honest people". If the jury was satisfied that Graham knew this was the case, he could be convicted of the theft of the �200.HoH ...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)

    However, at what point does the intention to cause GBH turn in to the intention to kill the victim? The defendant could have the intention for murder, but plead intention to GBH to make the offence seem less than it really was.

  2. Law - Unit 3 - Mock Exam Question

    chance to take effect, she died of a heart attack which was not caused by the poison. So he was not liable for her death. Secondly the original injury arising from the defendants conduct must be more than a minimal cause of the result constituting the offence.

  1. Human rights in Britain

    An example of this was the case of Wilson v First Trust (2003) where the House of Lords declared that the provision of the consumer credit Act 1974 violated the Convention. The Courts appear to have accepted that the Convention has limited form of horizontal effect. In Douglas v Hello!

  2. Law A2 unit 4 murder problem answer plan

    that whether an act is dangerous then means that it is likely to cause injury to another person. This is decided objectively - it must be an act that a sober and reasonable person would regard as dangerous, and would cause some harm.

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

    If the victim has not actually been touched, but only threatened or someone attempted to touch them, then the crime is assault. If the victim has been touched in a painful, harmful, violent, or offensive way by the person committing the crime, this might be battery.

  2. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    The reasonable man is held to have an ordinary level of skill and knowledge and this is the standard of care that must be met. However, if you are a professional then you have to display the level of

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