AQA LAW04 Criminal Offences against Property

This is designed to accompany AQA LAW04 Criminal Offences against Property

HideShow resource information
Preview of AQA LAW04  Criminal Offences against Property

First 91 words of the document:

AQA LAW04
Criminal Law (Offences against property)
Concepts of Law
AQA LAW04 Specifications 02 03
OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
Offences ­ Definitions ­ Key Cases 04 09
OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
THEFT 10 15
ROBBERY 16 17
BLACKMAIL 18 19
BURGLARY 20 21
CRIMINAL DAMAGE 22 23
MAKING OFF WITHOUT PAYMENT 24
FRAUD 25 26
THE DEFENCE OF DURESS 27
DURESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES 28
PAST EXAMINATIONS
with Potential Content 29 40
CONCEPTS OF LAW
LAW AND MORALS 42 45
BALANCING CONFLICTING INTERESTS 46 50
FAULT 51 54
Key notes for the essays 55 58
JUSTICE AND THE LAW 59 61
1

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

AQA LAW04
Criminal Law (Offences against property)
Concepts of Law
Section A Criminal Offences against Property
Theft and Robbery Actus reus (appropriation, property, belonging
to another).
Mens rea (dishonesty, intention permanently to
deprive (s1 Theft Act 1968).
Theft with the use or threat of use of force (s8
Theft Act 1968).
Burglary Elements of s9(1)(a) and s9(1)(b) Theft Act
1968, burglary in dwellings and other buildings.
Blackmail Unwarranted demand with menaces (s21 Theft
Act 1968).…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Section C CONCEPTS OF LAW
Candidates are required to answer one essay question from a choice of three, Candidates are
expected to relate their knowledge of legal processes, institutions and substantive law, gained in
studying any of the modules, to the concepts which follow.
Law and Morals The distinction between law and morals the diversity of moral
views in a pluralistic society the relationship between law and
morals and its importance. The legal enforcement of moral
values.…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

CRIMINAL LAW ­ OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
OFFENCES DEFINITIONS KEY CASES
THEFT s1 Theft Act 1968
`A person is guilty of theft if he ­ dishonestly ­ appropriates ­
property ­ belonging to another ­ with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it.'
dishonestly Ghosh (1982) ­ twostage test (objective & subjective)
The defendant is dishonest if he knows that, by the standards of the ordinary decent person,
people would regard him as dishonest.…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

­ Lavendar (1994) Lloyd (1985)
Velumyl (1989) Easom (1971)
Lavendar (1994) appropriated the right of the council to do what they wanted to do with the
new doors in the council block.
Lloyd (1985) had not intended to deprive the owners of their films permanently, and he had
returned them with none of their goodness or quality reduced.
Velumyl (1989) borrowed £1050 from the office safe but was unable to return the original
bank notes, and therefore guilty of permanently depriving their owners of them.…read more

Page 7

Preview of page 7

Here's a taster:

BLACKMAIL s21 THEFT ACT 1968
1 A person is guilty of blackmail if, `with a view to gain for himself or
another
or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted
demand
with menaces and for this purpose a demand with menaces is
unwarranted
unless the person making it does so in the belief ­
a that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand and
b that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the
demand.…read more

Page 8

Preview of page 8

Here's a taster:

Brown (1985) ­ the defendant was caught outside a building, leaning in through the window,
rummaging for goods. D was held to be properly convicted of 9(1)(b), his entry clearly having
been `effective', and he was attempting to steal.
Ryan (1996) the defendant was found trapped with his head and right arm inside the
window of a house irrelevant whether or not he was capable of stealing anything or not as a
result of his entry. Entry in excess of permission = trespass.…read more

Page 9

Preview of page 9

Here's a taster:

Allen (1985) left his hotel without paying but phoned manager and promised to leave his
passport as security until bill was paid. Arrested and charged. HL upheld his appeal because
there must be proof that the defendant intended to avoid payment on a permanent basis.
CRIMINAL DAMAGE ­ AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE ARSON
Under s1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, a person is guilty
of (basic) criminal damage if he ­ without lawful excuse ­ destroys or
damages property.…read more

Page 10

Preview of page 10

Here's a taster:

Duress and duress of circumstances
The case of R v HASSAN (2005) has restricted a defendant's chances of proving defence of
duress. The court wanted to restrict the use of duress so that only people who really deserve it
can use it.
Gill (1963) defendant claimed he and his wife had been threatened with violence if he didn't
steal lorry but duress not accepted because he had a `safe avenue of escape' ­ time to inform
the police.…read more

Comments

Abi95

A great resource, very detailed.

bluesy19

Excellent, and covers all areas.

henryegwilliams2

Whichever genius wrote this has saved my life!! BIG shout outs!!!

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »