Property Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Police Powers of Search and Entry.

Authors Avatar

Task 3: Identify the elements of property offences.

1. Theft

Theft Act 1968 states that a person will be responsible of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property which is belonging to another with the purpose of permanently depriving the other of it.

For Actus Reus related to theft it can be that if a person in a business steals company files without having permission to do so, this means that the person would be committing theft and for this reason they can be found guilty. For the Mens Rea of theft, the person must have been intended to steal something from the company such as the company files, this can be done due to get a member of staff in the company in trouble or to get them sacked. There was a case where a person was convicted of theft. D was a solicitor who transferred money from his clients’ account to a higher account in an attempt to cover his personal debts. D was guilty since it was an illegal action to take. Fernandes, R v [1996].

2: Obtaining property by deception

Fraud Act 2006 states that you cannot gain property by giving incorrect information. For example a person who is working to care for an elderly or disabled person, but the person who is caring for them has access to the elderly or disabled person’s bank account and misuses his position by transferring money to invest in a high-risk business of his own.

The Mens Rea of obtaining property by deception is that the person who was caring for elderly or disabled person knew that it was illegal to have someone’s bank details but still goes ahead and uses it for wrong purposes. The Actus Reus of obtaining property by deception is that the person has committed the theft and should be found guilty of his actions. There was a case related to obtaining property by deception, this was where D sold a car by giving false number plates to V in return for a cheque of £165. D lied to V by a false representation that he was the owner of the car and he entitled to sell it. Laverty, R v (1970)

 

3: Obtaining services by deception

This is included in the Fraud Act 2006 it tells us that if you obtain services with the wrong information then the person who is blameworthy they would have to pay a fine or they could possibly be jailed. The Actus Reus for deception is that a company orders a service but the service is not available to them. Along with Mens Rea it is that if the business has the right address but has the wrong business and if this is done purposely then the business will be obtaining services by deception. There was a case where D made a claim whereas his mother was alive to Birmingham City Council Social Services to provide a bathroom for the assistance of his elderly and sick mother. However D’s mother died, but the council carried out the works on the house. Rai, R v (2000)

4: Making off without payment

This consists of payment at the time of gathering goods on which a job has been done or in respect of which service has been supplied, this has been stated in the Theft Act 1978 in section 3. This section is planned to look after genuine business concerns and it relates to where goods are supplied or it can be where a service is carried out on the basis that the payment will be made. There was a case where D asked for a taxi driver to take him to a club which was 13 miles away. When D arrived he refused to pay the £15 fare he claimed that the journey was only four miles. The taxi driver at first started to take them back to their hotel, and then he took them to the police station where D ran out of the taxi. Aziz, R v (1993)

Join now!

Task 4: Describe the elements of liability for corporate manslaughter.

1. Define the following offences, outlining the differences between them.

  1. Murder - This is the act of killing another human being; with malice aforethought. It’s defined as the intention to kill or to cause bodily harm. For example, there was a case D lost his temper with his three-month-old son and threw the child onto a hard surface, causing head injuries from which the child died RV Woollin (1998). The differences between the others are that murder is the intentional and planned act of murder. ...

This is a preview of the whole essay