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

Criminal Law - reference case.

Extracts from this document...


Criminal Law Assignment 2: Question 2 Abhinav Gupta These facts require the consideration of theft and deception offences, under ss.1, 15 & 16 under the Theft Act 1968, and ss.1 & 2 under the Theft Act 1978. For all offences, the actus reus and mens rea must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. All defences must be proved to the same standard. Aslam may be charged with obtaining services by deception or obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. Deception, under s.15 of the 1968 Act is "any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law..." Under s.1 of the Theft Act 1978, obtaining services by deception is where another party is under the belief that acting, or permission to act has been or will be paid for. The actus reus is i) obtaining, ii) services and iii) by deception. The mens rea is i) ...read more.


To prosecute for obtaining services by deception, the prosecution would need to establish that when Bob completed the work, Aslam had no intention of paying. The case of Webb [2001] ascertained that if it can be established that the defendant had no intention of paying, despite making a representation to do so, they would be guilty of obtaining services by deception. Aslam would have known that his bank account was closed, indicating he had no intention of paying. However, the case of Webb can be distinguished because Aslam has a genuine contact address so could not avoid being contacted, indicating he did not intend not to pay, whereas in Webb, he had given false contact details. Bob may also be charged with obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. He may be charged with making off without payment or theft. Under the 1978 Act, the actus reus of evasion of liability is secure remission, make permanent default or obtain exemption, all with deception. ...read more.


It is known that Bob did not pay on the spot and he knew that that was required, as he shouted a company name to whose account the bill should be charged. He was dishonest with the company name as he gave the name of a neighbouring company, which can also prove he was intent on avoiding payment. Therefore the test is satisfied and Bob can be found guilty of making off without payment. Before the introduction of the 1978 Act, he could have been charged with theft of the petrol, but would have probably been acquitted using the case of Edwards [1976], in which it was decided that since the owner's petrol had become indistinguishable from the defendant's he could not be charged with theft of it as the actus reus could not be established. To summarise, Aslam is probably guilty of obtaining services by deception or obtaining pecuniary services by deception. It is unlikely he would be convicted for both. Bob is probably guilty of obtaining pecuniary services by deception and making off without payment, but not guilty of theft. ...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 Law of Tort 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 Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Goodward owed Wattleworth a duty of care but he was not in breach of it as causation was not proved. There can be several defences used in these circumstances the first being volenti. In Woolridge v Sumner it states that this defence does not normally apply to cases of spectators

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    D appreciated that this was the case. U78Y from U78Y coursewrok U78Y work U78Y info U78Y However, under the continuing doctrine of transferred malice, established in Latimer [1886], where the defendant does an actus reus with the required mens rea, he is guilty of an offence even if the result is in some respects an unintended one.


    Ken can also file a defence that Malcolm was trespassing on his land and therefore he can not be held liable for Malcolm's actions. Ken may file for the defence of Volenti non fit injuria (malcom), this means no injury is done to one who voluntarily accepts a risk.

  2. Using actual situations, describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal ...

    A person may be guilty of involuntary manslaughter in three ways: by an act which is unlawful and dangerous, by recklessness and by gross negligence. When I compare the actus reus' of murder and manslaughter, it can be seen that in both murder and manslaughter the unlawful killing of a person is the actus reus.

  1. negligence in tort

    or hospital authority and admitted patients exists, the doctor or the hospital owe a duty to take responsible care to effect a cure, not merely to prevent further harm.' The claimant must prove that their damage would not have occurred, but for the defendant's breach of duty.

  2. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    While the main aim of tort proceedings is to compensate for harm suffered, contract aims primarily to enforce promises. Again, there are areas where these distinctions blur. In some cases liability in tort is clarified by the presence of agreement-for example, the duty owed by an occupier of land to

  1. tort law

    When drinking the ginger beer she found part of decomposed snail. Later she claimed to be suffering from stomach pains. She claims that the pains were due to her consuming the drink which contained a decomposed snail. She claimed �500 as a result of this.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Hugh died later. Analysis: As mentioned in 3.3.2-employer liability, employers are the group most commonly held vicariously liable. Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. However, to limit the exposure to the tortfeasor and limit vicarious liability, employer

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