Law assignment – Theft
To be charged with theft a person should be dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Theft act 1968 (section 1)
In the case of John he committed theft under section 2 – 6 of Theft Act 1968. John had the intention to commit theft from when he knew that he and Janet didn’t have any cash left after the Night Club, His Mens Rea was completed when he decided to go to the supermarket. The offence was absolute when he picked up the spirit from the shelf.
In the case of Janet she was unaware that John had no money to go to the super market. We can however question why she didn’t ask John if he had money to purchase the goods. We cannot prove her dishonesty because we unsure of why she run out the shop.
The items stolen in the supermarket were property and she has completed the actus reus by leaving the shop with the items. But to be to be charged for theft u need both mens reas and actus reus to be completed
We could argue if Janet had the intention of permanently depriving the owner of the property when she left the shop. She could have gone back to return it to the owner, therefore the intention of permanently deprive the owner cannot be proven.
In Gomez (1992) the manager was unaware that the cheques were stolen and he hadn’t appropriated the property because the contract for good were voidable therefore it wasn’t theft. Jane also was unaware of johns intention and whe cannot determine if she assumed ownership of the property when she left the supermarket.
Law assignment- Theft
* Class Room Notes , Slide: Theft
* Jefferson Micheal,2007, Criminal Law , 8th edition, Essex, Pearson Education Limited.