• 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)

    voluntarily assumed to take the risk involved, although knowledge of the danger does not necessarily imply consent. Volenti succeeded in the case of Morris v Murray 1990 3 All ER 801 after the plaintiff accepted a lift with a drunk driver.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    3 star(s)

    was prosecuted for doing an act likely to assist the enemy "with intent to assist the enemy". His conviction was quashed, however, in holding that although he did intend to make the broadcasts, he did so under duress: his ulterior intent had been to protect his family.


    whom the duty is owed does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned. TRESPASS TO LAND. James and malcolm Trespass to land is the 'Direct interference with the possession of another person's land without lawful authority'.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    rea should be present at the inception of the actus reus; it can be superimposed on an existing act." The judgement established that the battery on the police constable (the actus reus) was a continuing act which was not complete until the battery ceased i.e.

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

    but is allowed, by law, to use one of three defences to lesson the charge to manslaughter. These defences are diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact. Involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing where the accused did not have the specific intention for murder.

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

    Smith intended whatever he foresaw[4]. Further, in Hardy v Motor Insurers' Bureau [1964], it was said of the accused that "he must have foreseen, when he did the act, that it would in all probability injure the other person. Therefore he had the intent to injure the other person."

  1. tort law

    This test was first identified in Blyth v Proprietors of the Birmingham waterworks 1856. "Negligence is the omission to something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do." It was later defined in Hall v Brooklands Auto racing club 1933.

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

    It places a duty on all employers "to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work" of all their employees. Among other provisions, the Act also requires: 1. Safe operation and maintenance of the working environment, plant and systems 2.

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