• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15

Law a2 notes

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Theft Defined under s.1 Theft Act 1968 as: > Dishonestly (s.2) > Appropriates (s.3) > Property (s.4) > Belonging to another (s.5) > With intention to permanently deprive (s.6) Actus Reus Appropriation (s.3) "Any assumption of the rights of an owner can amount to be an assumption" Lawrence; Morris; Gomez; Hinks; Atakpu Property (s.4) "Property includes money and all other property whether real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property" Real Property Land and things forming part of land and severed from it but only in certain circumstances Personal Property Any item other than real property that can be possessed R v Kelly & Lindsay; Oxford v Moss Belonging to another (s.5) "Property shall be regarded as belonging to another person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propriety right or interest" "Where a person receives property from another or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds belong to another" "Where a person gets property by another's mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or part) of the property or its proceeds .... Then the property or proceeds shall be regarded as belonging to the (other) person" R v Turner; DPP v Lavender; Hall; Wain; Webster; Williams v Phillips; R v Rostron Dishonestly (s.2) 2 (1) (a) belief that he has the right in law to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a third person R v Holden 2 (1) (b) beliefs that he would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it 2 (1) (c) belief that the person whom the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps R v Small The Ghosh Test 1) ...read more.

Middle

not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land. Belonging to another 10. (2) Property shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as belonging to any person - (a) having the custody or control of it; (b) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or (c) having a charge on it. The term 'belonging to another' has a similar definition to section 4 Theft Act 1968 which says: "Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having a proprietary right or interest." This brings concepts of civil law into the determination of rights in property R v Smith Mens Rea The mens rea for criminal damage is: > Intention Or > Recklessness R v G Intention - The defendant must intend (aim or purpose) to destroy or damage property belonging to another "It is not enough that D intended to do the act which caused the damage unless he intended to cause that damage; proof that D intended to throw a stone is not proof that he intended to break a window. Nor is it enough that D intends to damage property if he does not intended to damage [the] property of another." R .v. Pembliton Smith & Hogan's Criminal Law, 11th Edition, page 879 Since R .v. R & G, abolished the Caldwell objective test there has only been one type of Recklessness in Criminal Damage - Subjective Recklessness The Defendant is reckless if: He is aware of a risk and in the circumstances known to him it is unreasonable to take the risk. Elliott v C; R v G; R v Stephenson; R v Cooper; R v Castle; Special Defences S5(2)(a) states that a person will be regarded as having a lawful excuse if at the time of the act or acts alleged ...read more.

Conclusion

> Dishonestly R v Widdowson Defences Self Defence - General Defence, Complete Acquittal. Largely codified in S.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Necessary Force: - Need not show unwillingness to fight (Bird) - Danger must be sufficiently imminent and of a nature to justify the use of force - Need not be attacked first (Beckford - Pre-emptive) - If threat has passed the force is not necessary (Clegg) - Not necessary if they are retreating (Martin) - D may act in contrary to law to defend himself (AG Ref. No 2 of 1983) Reasonable Force:- Reasonable in the circumstances as the D believed them to be (objective) - If they make a mistake, it is whether the force was objectively reasonable in circumstances as they honestly believed them to be (Gladstone) - If it is objectively obsessive, even if the D thought was reasonable the defence fails (Owino) - Response must be proportionate to the threat (Palmer) "Cannot weigh nicety to exact measure of his defensive action" - Clegg and Martin can be used as measure of reasonableness of the force used Intoxication - General defence --> complete acquittal. Voluntary Intoxication:- Majewski - Defence to only specific intent crimes. If basic intent then they are reckless in drinking. (Confirmed in Lipman) Dutch Courage - Fails (Gallagher) Drunken Mistake - Cannot rely on defence of mistake (O'Grady/Hatton) Richardson + Irwin - If they would not have realized the risk will sober; it is a defence to basic intent. (Jury Q - Limited Application) Involuntary Intoxication: Defence to basic and specific intent, has to be shown D had no MR. Hardie: Drugs not liable to cause unpredictably and aggressiveness have a defence Kingston: Intoxicated intent is still intent Allen - Intoxication must be completely invol. Not knowing the strength is not enough. Bailey: If you know there will be adverse reaction to a drug, cannot rely on defence Ross v Lord Advocate: Complete involuntary intoxication Eatch: If one intoxicant is added to another it is up to jury whether their intoxicated state was due solely to voluntary intoxication ...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 Sources of 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 Sources of Law essays

  1. To advise Reggie, it is necessary to look at the law of adverse possession. ...

    the property, he won't have the overriding interest for the land.16 A person who is in actual occupation but has no right known to law or equity can get no benefit17, nor can a person who has rights but who is not in occupation.18 Thus, Reggie can argue that even

  2. The Land Registration Act 2002 heralds major changes to the law and procedures regarding ...

    months in which to notify the Land Registry of his opposition to it. The squatter's application will then automatically rejected unless he can establish one of three conditions10. Assuming for the moment that none of them apply, and the squatter's application is rejected, the landowner then has two years from

  1. Commercial law discussion - 'Transfer of Title by a Non-Owner'.

    The defendant had no right to sell the car, however he does transfer ownership because it is one of the exceptional cases where a non-owner seller can make the buyer owner. However the seller is in breach of s12(1) of the Sale of Goods Act. Even though the defendant (seller)

  2. Critically evaluate the partial defence of Provocation.

    It must also be proven that the defendant did actually lose their self-control? The loss of self-control must be due to a loss of temper and the case of R v Cocker (1989) shows that this can produce harsh results.

  1. "The main aims of the Land Registration Acts were to give certainty to title ...

    Rigg (1977)59. The problem is that S.20(1) provides a way for dealing with minor interests without inferring the doctrine of notice, but S.59(6) in its wording hints to the doctrine of notice. Lyus v. Prowsa Developments Ltd (1980)60 and Howell v.

  2. Unmarried fathers and their children - has the law got it right?

    The act of registration is treated as an agreement between the parents, but the provision does not operate retrospectively and the court will have the power to remove parental responsibility. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 aligns adoption law with the relevant provisions of the of the Children Act 1989

  1. Discuss the extent to which the courts insist that all crimes require both an ...

    In the case of Gammon (Hong Kong) V Attorney - General (1985) builders had deviated from plans and part of a building had fell down, but that is irrelevant, they deviated from plans, so that is the actus reus. The problem with English Statutes is that they don't always state that a crime is strict liability or not.

  2. The Nature of Law in Society

    The most famous advocate of the Natural Law Theory was the Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas developed Aristotle's ideas and argued that the natural 'purpose' of the world is found in God. Humans are free beings and are capable of choosing to follow the 'natural law' of God which is understood through reason.

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