Criminal Unit 5 SBAQs Flashcards
Complete the missing elements.
The actus reus of theft is the _________ of property belonging to another.
The mens rea of theft is ________and an intention to permanently deprive.
The actus reus of theft is the appropriation of property belonging to another.
The mens rea of theft is dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive.
Which one or more of the following would amount to an appropriation of Alex’s laptop by Bernie? To obtain credit for this question, you must identify all the correct options.
A. Switching it on.
B. Offering the laptop for sale.
C. Agreeing to lend the laptop to Carmen.
D. Accepting the laptop as a gift.
E. Throwing the laptop in a skip.
A, B, C, D and E are correct
Options A, B, C, D and E are correct as switching the laptop on, offering it for sale, agreeing to lend the laptop, accepting the laptop as a gift, and throwing it in a skip are all appropriations. This is because an appropriation under s.3 Theft Act 1968 includes any assumption of the rights of an owner.
Is this statement true or false? The test for dishonesty is partly objective in that the defendant’s conduct is judged against the standards of ordinary, decent people.
TRUE
Having established the defendant’s knowledge or belief as to the facts, the standard against which they are judged is that of ordinary, decent people. This is the test as set out in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017].
In which of the following scenarios does Joanna satisfy the mens rea for theft?
A. She borrowed Mary’s coat to go to the local shop as she could not find hers and put it back as soon as she returned.
B. She picked up Kieran’s keys honestly and unreasonably thinking they were hers.
C. She picked up a pen from work and took it home.
D. She picked up Hannah’s laptop leaving £50 to pay for the laptop.
D is correct
This is because s.2(2) states that a willingness to pay is not conclusive proof of lack of dishonesty and the jury will assess the issue of dishonesty in the normal way.
The mens rea is not satisfied in option A because Joanna has no intention to permanently deprive Mary of her coat. Also, she may not be dishonest under s.2(1)(b) if she honestly believes that Mary would consent to her borrowing her coat.
Joanna is not dishonest in option B because of the provisions contained in s.2(1) Theft Act 1968. Because she thought the keys were hers, Joanna believed she had the right in law to take them – s.2(1)(a). Provided the defendant’s belief is honestly held, it does not need to be reasonable and the jury would have to acquit Joanna of theft in these circumstances.
In option C, picking up a pen from work is unlikely to be regarded as dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary, decent people as required by the Ivey test.
In which of the following situations is there an intention permanently to deprive for the purpose of theft?
A. Deanna borrows her neighbour’s lawnmower but plans to return it an hour later.
B. Deanna takes £5 from her partner’s wallet to pay for her lunch. She plans to repay him when she is paid next week.
C. In October, Deanna takes Joe’s membership card for the local gym. She plans to return the card to Joe in November. Joe’s membership is due for renewal next May.
B is correct
Although Deanna intends to repay the money, this is relevant to the separate issue of dishonesty. There is a clear intention to permanently deprive of the actual cash taken as she plans to spend it on her lunch and even if Deanna repays the money, it will be different coins or notes.
Options A and C are wrong because taking an item is not, in itself, sufficient to establish the relevant intention. An intention to permanently deprive has to be proved and an intention to borrow will not suffice unless, under s.6(1) Theft Act 1968, the borrowing equates to an outright taking. In options A and C, this is not the case as there is still a value to the property when Deanna plans to return it.
Which one or more of the following are elements of the actus reus and/or mens rea of fraud under s.2 Fraud Act 2006? To obtain credit for this question, you must identify all the correct statements?
A. Appropriation of property
B. Dishonestly
C.Making a false representation
D. With intention to permanently deprive
E. Without having paid as required or expected
F. Knowing the representation is or might be untrue or misleading
G. With intent to make a gain or cause a loss to another
H. With intention to avoid payment permanently
B, C, F and G are correct
These are all elements of fraud under s.2 Fraud Act 2006; the rest are elements of the actus reus or mens rea of theft or the unrelated offence of making off without payment (which is beyond the scope of this course).
Which of the following statements is wrong?
A. To be guilty of fraud by false representation, the defendant must make a false representation and it is irrelevant whether anyone is misled by the representation.
B. To be guilty of fraud by failing to disclose information, there must be a legal duty to disclose that information.
C. To be guilty of fraud by abuse of position, the defendant must be in a position of financial trust.
D. The mens rea is the same for all three ways of committing fraud
D is correct
Although the mens rea for all types of fraud is that the defendant intended to make a gain for self or another or to cause a loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss, and did so dishonestly, fraud by false representation has another requirement. The accused must know the representation is or might be false.
Is it true or false that a false representation under s.2 Fraud Act 2006 can be made to a machine?
TRUE
The prosecution need only prove that a false representation was made and not that anyone was actually deceived. As a consequence, it is possible to make a false representation to a machine.
Alice applies for a job as a solicitor and, as part of the application process, she is asked whether she has any criminal convictions. Alice ticks the box to indicate that she does not, despite having been found guilty of a theft offence when she was at school. Which of the following statements is correct?
A. Alice is guilty of fraud by false representation.
B. Alice is guilty of fraud by false representation and fraud by failing to disclose information.
C. Alice is guilty of fraud by failing to disclose information.
D. Alice is guilty of fraud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of a position of trust.
B is correct
Alice makes a false representation of fact under s.2 Fraud Act 2006 by wrongly stating that she does not have any criminal convictions. She is also guilty of failing to disclose information under s.3 as she is subject to a legal duty to disclose the theft conviction due to the express term of the employment contract.
Ishmail states that his income is higher than it is on a mortgage application form but his application is unsuccessful and he does not get a mortgage. Georgiou orders and eats a meal at a restaurant intending to pay with his credit card which the bank had instructed him to stop using.
Who is guilty of committing fraud by false representation?
A. Ishmail
B. Georgiou
C. Both Ishmail and Georgiou
C is correct
they are both guilty of fraud by false representation. Ishmail makes a false representation on the form that his income is higher than it is, while Georgiou falsely represents by his conduct that he has the means and ability to pay. They know the representation is false (Ishmail will know his true income and Georgiou has been instructed not to use the card) and intend to make a gain of a mortgage and the meal respectively. Each would be regarded as dishonest in acting as they did.
A man is tidying his house when he finds two adventure novels that his friend lent him 12 months previously. The man and his friend have not been in contact since then because the friend moved away from the area. The man has his friend’s telephone number but decides not to contact him because he thinks his friend will not want the books back now, so long after having lent them. The following weekend, the man sells the books in a car boot sale.
Is the man likely to be guilty of theft?
A. No, because he was given the books previously so there is no appropriation.
B. No, because he is not dishonest as he honestly believed his friend would consent to him selling the books.
C. No, because he thought his action was honest by the standards of ordinary, decent people.
D. Yes, because the books did not belong to him and so his actions would be regarded as clearly dishonest.
E. Yes, because an honest person would have offered the books back to his friend first, before selling them.
B is correct
This is because, under s.2(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, if the man believes his friend would not want the books back, he may honestly believe he would have the consent of his friend to sell them.
Option A is wrong because an appropriation includes where the defendant comes by the item innocently but later assumes the rights of the owner – s.3(1). Although the friend lent the man the books, selling them will count as a new appropriation.
Option C is wrong because the test under Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] is an objective one – it is irrelevant what the defendant thought. Having ascertained the man’s knowledge of the facts, the court will determine whether his conduct was honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary, decent people.
Option D is wrong as the man’s actions are unlikely to be regarded as clearly dishonest; this is the type of scenario in which the court would consider the Ivey test.
Option E is also wrong for the reasons above – an honest person in this situation may have decided not to return books such as these, which are unlikely to have any real value, particularly as the man had not been in contact with his friend for many months.
A woman is employed by the local council to allocate contracts for the supply of goods and services to the various departments. As part of this role, she grants the contract for the supply of educational materials to a company but fails to mention to the councillors that one of the directors is her husband. The council is also unaware that the woman has received a fee for ensuring the company was awarded the contract.
Which of the following best describes how the woman has committed an offence of fraud?
A. Fraud by false representation.
B. Fraud by failure to disclose information.
C. Fraud by abuse of position.
D. Fraud by failure to disclose information and by abuse of position.
E. Fraud by false representation and by abuse of position.
D is correct
The woman is guilty of an offence under s 3 as she fails to disclose to the councillors that her husband is benefiting from the contract to supply the educational materials. This is material information that she is under a legal duty to disclose. In addition, the woman is also guilty of an offence of abuse of position under s 4 of the FA 2006. She is in a fiduciary position (as an employee) in which she is expected to safeguard or not to act against the financial interests of another, in this instance, the council. This duty would require her to ensure that the contract was awarded on merit and not because she receives a payment. As to the mens rea, the woman intends to make a gain for herself and another (her husband) and the court is likely to be satisfied as to her dishonesty.
Option A is wrong because the woman does not make a false representation under s 2, as is option E for the same reason. Options B and C are wrong as they only identify one of the offences for which she may be liable rather than both.
A woman collected £300 from 12 of her friends and told them that she would use the money to book a holiday abroad for her hen party. It was understood by all concerned that the woman would keep the money given to her separate from her own money and use it for the purpose of booking the holiday. The woman deposited the money into her own bank account, but rather than booking the holiday, the money was used to pay off her credit card. The holiday was not booked and the money was not refunded to her friends.
Which one of the following statements is correct in relation to the woman’s criminal liability for theft?
A. The woman is not liable for theft, but is liable for fraud.
B. The woman is not liable for theft, as she was not obliged to use the money that her friends had specifically given her to book the holiday.
C. The woman is liable for theft, as she was under an obligation to deal with the money in a particular way.
D. The woman is not liable for theft, as the money does not amount to property.
E. The woman is not liable for theft, as the money did not belong to another once it had been deposited into her bank account.
C is correct
Under s.5(3) of the Theft Act 1968 – where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded as belonging to the other.
Option A is wrong as the requirements under the Fraud Act 2006 are not met, whereas the woman is guilty of theft.
Option B is wrong as it was made specifically clear to the woman that she should keep the money given to her by her friends separate from her own money and use it for the purpose of booking the holiday. Scenario distinguished from the case of R v Hall [1973].
Option D is wrong as money falls within the category of property under s.4(1) of the Theft Act 1968, as is option E for the reason set out in the first paragraph above.
A student enters his tutor’s office and sees a copy of the assessment he is due to sit the following week. He memorises it and leaves the office. In the library, he picks up a text book that he believes has been left by one of his friends; in fact, it is his own text book.
As he is walking home, the student picks some buttercups growing by the side of the road. Nearby, he sees an engagement ring in the grass, which has been flung away by the owner after her boyfriend split up with her. The student puts the ring in his pocket. He then calls on his elderly neighbour and drops off a pint of milk that he has purchased for her. In confusion, she gives him a valuable bracelet which he decides to keep.
For which item has the student satisfied the actus reus of theft?
A. The assessment.
B. The text book.
C. The buttercups.
D. The engagement ring.
E. The bracelet.
E is correct
The student commits the actus reus of theft when he takes the valuable bracelet as this is property belonging to another – his neighbour – and gifts may be an appropriation (although it will only be theft if the defendant also satisfies the mens rea).
The student has not satisfied the actus reus of theft for the assessment in option A, as confidential information is not property within the meaning of the TA 1968. To be liable for theft, the student must steal property belonging to another and the text book (option B) belongs to him, even though he does not realise this. The buttercups are wild flowers so cannot be considered ‘property’; thus, option C is wrong. The engagement ring has been abandoned by the owner and so does not belong to another, hence, the actus reus is not complete in option D.
A woman is sitting in a local cafe when she picks up a coat that has been left on the back of the chair next to her. The coat is worth £20. She then leaves the cafe with the coat.
In which of the following circumstances is she dishonest?
A. She leaves the sum of £20 in cash to pay for the coat.
B. She honestly thinks that the coat has been abandoned.
C. She honestly but unreasonably thinks it is her coat.
D. She honestly and reasonably thinks it is her coat.
E. She honestly believes the owner would consent to her taking the coat as she thinks it belongs to a friend of hers.
A is correct
The woman may be dishonest as s.2(2) of the TA 1968 states that a willingness to pay is not in itself proof of a lack of dishonesty.
With regard to option B, if she genuinely believes that the book has been abandoned she is not dishonest under s.2(1)(c).
The woman is not dishonest in options C or D because of the provisions contained in s.2(1)(a); the woman thinks it is her coat and so she believes she has the right in law to take it. Provided the defendant’s belief is honestly held, it does not need to be reasonable and the jury must acquit her of theft in these circumstances. She is not dishonest in option E because of s.2(1)(b), as she honestly believes the owner would consent to her taking the book.
