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

    the buyer and nor by the Factors Act because the seller is not a mercantile agent. However the third party in the case has rights under s27(2) of the Hire-Purchase Act 1964, which states that where a motor vehicle is held under a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement and

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

    It is fair to say that there is certainty of title, conveyancing is facilitated and the transfer of land is more simple and economical than in unregistered land. Purchasers are greatly benefited as most adverse rights are either noted on the register or obvious by physical inspection.

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

    Children Act 1989, is said to be a clear discrimination against fathers. Obviously there are fathers who do not deserve parental responsibility, just as there are married fathers and many married and unmarried mothers who do not deserve it. It may be more understandable why married mothers and fathers automatically

  2. Outline many of the basic elements of law that relate to business and marketing.

    These joint forces are represented on the Australian Government's anti-scam website ScamWatch. According to ScamWatch, all parties within the taskforce claim to be united in communicating with Australian consumers about scams by a range of community, non-government and private sector organisations.

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

    So, once a squatter's application has been received by the Land Registry, notice of it is given to the registered proprietor to enable him to take necessary step accordingly. It should be noted that under LRA 2002, once the owner has received notice of the squatter's application he has three

  2. 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

  1. The first issue that arises here is A's act of taking his father's railway ...

    The answer here would be yes. The court would then ask if A knew that his act was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary reasonable person. I the answer is positive as well, he would have been dishonest in his act.

  2. Critically evaluate the partial defence of Provocation.

    One night at the pub he tells two friends of his that they would be 'all right for a gang-bang' that night. When he and Emma reached the house he removed his clothes apart from his shirt and she feared that he was going to rape her.

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