• 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)

    standard of conduct which the sport or game permits or involves, and a spectator takes the risk of damage done to him by the participants in the course of and for the purposes of that sport or game, notwithstanding that such damage may be a result of an error of

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

    If he foresaw death as virtually certain, this is a matter of factual evidence from which the jury may infer that the defendant intended that death.code der sededew orde dek inde fode de. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 supported these more recent decisions:codd ddr seddddw ordd ddk indd fodd dd!

  1. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    In some cases, this duty will include a responsibility to warn employees that protective equipment should be used. A safe place of work Employers must take reasonable steps to ensure a safe place of work; but this does not mean that every foreseeable risk must be eliminated, if doing so would be unreasonably onerous.

  2. tort law

    She claimed �500 as a result of this. However is was questioned that should she be able to sue the defendant, who in this case is the manufacture of the ginger beer as she did not purchase the drink directly, the drink was a present to her from her friend.


    The factors that Leonard must take into account when establishing whether to bring a claim of private nuisance against Ken. In deciding whether a private nuisance (of either type)

  2. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    The cuts to the other leg may be serious enough to amount to a wound especially if they require medical attention. The prosecution will have to choose whether they charge the wound or Grievous Bodily Harm. The bruises by themselves unless they also require medical attention are unlikely to be sufficient to amount to a s20 charge.


    Causation is both a question of fact and law. It has to be first established that there is a factual link between Tom's act (of steering the car into the ditch) and Sara's death. This is resolved by applying the 'but-for' test - 'but for' the act of Tom would Sara have died?

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

    for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator (Source: Wikipedia). A person who did not cause the injury has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently.

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