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

Nina runs a burger bar. She puts up a sign in the window saying Our burgers are the best in town. Chips cooked in vegetable oil. Omar, a strict vegetarian, asks for a portion of chips and a veggie burger. He later discovers that animal oil a

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Nina runs a burger bar. She puts up a sign in the window saying "Our burgers are the best in town. Chips cooked in vegetable oil." Omar, a strict vegetarian, asks for a portion of chips and a veggie burger. He later discovers that animal oil as well as vegetable oil was used to cook the chips. Anyway, the burger tastes awful. Prafal asks for a can of lemonade. Quince, who has been employed by Nina as a cashier, rather than giving him one of Nina's cans of lemonade, gives Prafal a can which she bought earlier from a supermarket. She pockets the money Prafal pays for the can and does not report the purchase to Nina. When later interviewed by the police she says that although most people would regard what she had done dishonest, she thinks that a lot of people would not. On the way out, Prafal picks up a newspaper belonging to Nina. He returns it the next day. What crimes, if any, have been committed? I will argue that Nina is committing fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. I believe Quince is potentially committing fraud by failing to disclose information under section 3, but does not quite fulfil all the requirements but there is also a potential that she is committing fraud by failing to abuse of position under section 4 and even fraud by false representation. There is no need to prove which means was used to commit fraud as long as the jury is satisfied it was either fraud by false representation, failing to disclose information and by abuse of position. ...read more.

Middle

I think that, although there is a false representation in that the can was Quince's not Nina's, the legal duties that Quince is under as an employee to provide Prafal with Nina's wares, rather than her own, and if she did replace it, to inform Prafal of this, is a much stronger and more obvious aspect. The offence under section 3 has many of the elements already discussed. Quince's actions satisfy subsections 1, 2 and 3 of section 2 of the Fraud Act, as she has acted in a dishonest manner by falsely and misleadingly representing her own can of lemonade as one of Nina's, with a view to gain, which is confirmed when she keeps the money that he receives from the sale. This offence deals with 'deception by silence'. The important element in this situtation is that, according to s2(4), for a fraud by false representation, the "representation may be express or implied". As such the omission by Quince to mention that the can was hers, and not from Nina's van as Prafal would have undoubtedly assumed, could constitute an implied representation. However, the offence is only committed when there is a legal duty' for the defendant to disclose appropriate information to another. If it is viewed that Quince, by her actions, "dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which she is under duty to disclose", then she has fulfilled section 3(1a). Obviously, this needs to be disconstructed into its various parts. Firstly, there is the element of dishonesty, which is determined by the Ghosh test already outlined. Her claim that "although most people would regard what she had done dishonest, she thinks that a lot of people would not", suggests her recognition that the majority would find her actions dishonest. ...read more.

Conclusion

The owner's consent is not important, the key is the defendant's belief, however unreasonable, that the victim would consent. It is quite likely that Nina may have been generous and let Prafal use it, but then again she may not have, and there is not enough evidence to determine this. The final element of mens rea is the issue of intention to permanently deprive Nina of the newspaper. Prafal's quick return of the newspaper suggests there was no intention to deprive Nina permanently. However, the definition of this issue under section 6(1) includes the possibility of borrowing in some form as an intention to permanently deprive, "a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal". Prafal returned the newspaper the very next day. In Lloyd the judge decided 'borrowing is ex hypothesi not something which is done with an intention permanently to deprive.' This subsection intended to make it clear that a mere borrowing is never enough to constitute the necessary guilty mind unless the intention is to return the "thing" in such a changed state that it can truly be said that all its goodness or virtue has gone". Newspapers are daily so arguably the newspaper's 'virtue has gone' and would not be particularly useful, as Nina would have had to buy another newspaper to find out the days news, he dprived Nina of her newspaper during it's most useful period. However, it is still usuable after the day, so it should be concluded there was no intention to permanently deprive Nina of the newspaper and therefore no theft amounts from Prafal's actions. ? ...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. Criminal offences are usually defined in terms of a guilty act (actus reus) and ...

    the behaviour of a defendant was not the only cause of death. There is also the 'thin skull' or 'eggshell skull' rule. This is where in some cases a victim may be particular susceptible to harm in a way that the great majority of people are not.

  2. A person who genuinely attempts to commit a criminal offence and fails still deserves ...

    On collecting a package of what he believed was either heroin or cannabis, the defendant was arrested by the police, the contents were later found not to be drugs but a harmless vegetable substance. He was convicted of an attempt and his appeal upheld, which in my opinion was the right decision.

  1. Law - Unit 3 - Mock Exam Question

    Firstly if a special relationship exists between two people. In R v Lowe (1973) a father failed to call a doctor when his nine-week-old baby became ill. He had a duty to act, though on the facts he lacked the mens rea of an offence because of his low intelligence.

  2. The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which ...

    Whether or not preparing to an attack to defend, even when it involves breaches of the law, was a question arisen in Attorney-General's Reference (No.2 of 1983).The defendant's shop had been attacked and damaged by rioters, so fearing further attacks he made petrol bombs.

  1. Human rights in Britain

    The Human Rights Act 1998 stops short of making the European convention into a United Kingdom Bill of Rights; however it does enable Judges in the United Kingdom to look at legislation and the Acts of the public authorities in light of the (ECHR).

  2. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    is transferred to the actual victim. This was illustrated in R v Latimer where A went to hit B with a belt which recoiled and hit C instead. Latimer?s intent to harm was transferred to C. The actus reus and the mens rea must still coincide so where A plans

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