theft mens rea
- Created by: Emma-Cargillxx
- Created on: 01-06-17 20:28
View mindmap
- Theft- Mens Rea
- The first thing to prove for mens rea is that the defendant was dishonest
- There is no definition of what is meant by dishonesty but the theft act gives three situations which are not dishonest
- If defendant appropriated the property in the belief that...
- He has the right to deprive the other of it
- believed the other would consent if they knew the circumstances
- The property owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
- These situations depend on the defendants belief, if the defendant genuinely believed this, they are not guilty of theft
- Supported by the case of Robinson - as he believed he had the right to take the £5 note
- If defendant appropriated the property in the belief that...
- Willing To Pay
- Even if the defendant says he is willing to pay, his conduct has still been dishonest, so defendant is still liable
- The Ghosh Test
- COA decided the test for dishonesty has both an objective and subjective element
- 1. Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of the reasonable and honest person?
- 2. Did the defendant realise that what we was doing was dishonest by those standards?
- COA decided the test for dishonesty has both an objective and subjective element
- Intention of permanently depriving
- The final element which has to be proved is that the defendant has the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property
- Velumyl = upheld for intention of permanently depriving
- Conditional Intent to Deprieve
- Easom = even though he only had a conditional intent to deprive, this was not enough
- Intention to treat Things as Your Own
- Raphael & Another
- This was held as a theft but the fact there was a threat made this robbery
- Raphael & Another
Comments
No comments have yet been made