Theft

Question 1

What is the definition of theft?

Answer 1

Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968

“A person is guilty of theft if he/she dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”

Question 2

Acting dishonestly is a crucial part of ‘theft’.

In what circumstances is a person NOT regarded as having been dishonest?

Answer 2

(Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968)

1. He/she believes that he/she has a LAWFUL RIGHT to take the item
   - You see someone leaving a restaurant with what you believe to be your bag so you take it back from them. However, it turns out not to be yours. This wouldn’t amount to dishonestly taking the bag.
2. He/she believes that he/she would have had the OWNER’S CONSENT if the owner had known of the taking of the property and the circumstances around it.
   - An example of this would be taking £2 of loose change lying on a friends table to pay a parking meter outside their house to stop you receiving a large fine. It is clear that the friend who owns the money would consent to this in order to avoid their friend receiving a large fine.
3. The owner CANNOT BE DISCOVERED by taking reasonable steps.
   - An obvious example for this is someone finding money lying in the street.

Question 3

What two questions need to be considered to ascertain whether or not an act was theft?

Answer 3

(Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968)

1. Was the act “dishonest” according to the ordinary standards of an honest and reasonable person? (This is often called the reasonable person test/ objective test.)
   - If the act wasn’t dishonest then this part of the offence isn’t made out and so there is no theft.
2. If it was dishonest, then did the defendant themselves realise that it was dishonest according to those standards?
   - It is enough to prove that they knew others would think their behaviour was dishonest, or that they thought that what they were doing was ‘wrong’.

Question 4

Dishonesty (Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968)

In relation to dishonesty there are 2 main stated cases that you need to be aware of:

Answer 4

(Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968)

1. R v Ghosh involving Dr Ghosh and dates back to 1982.
2. Ivey v Genting Casinos (Uk) Ltd which amended the initial ruling.

Question 5

Dishonesty (Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968)

R v Ghosh

What happened?

Answer 5

Dates back to 1982.

Dr Ghosh was a surgeon who charged for work that either other surgeons/ NHS did.

He claimed that he was owed money anyway for the consultation work he had done.

Found guilty but appealed on the basis that the trial judge had told the jury to use their common sense to determine whether the accused’s conduct had been dishonest or not.

Ghosh argued that the judge should have instructed the jury that dishonesty was about the accused’s state of mind (a subjective test) rather than the jury’s point of view (an objective test).

Question 6

Dishonesty (Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968)

Ivey v Genting Casinos (Uk) Ltd

What happened?

Answer 6

This amended the initial ruling.

Ivey used a ploy to allow him to increase the odds of him winning in a card game.

This resulted in him winning around £7.7 million in one night.

The casino worked out what he had been doing and so withheld the winnings saying he had been dishonest.

Mr Ivey launched civil claim. Court questioned whether he had “cheated”…

• Yes = breached the implied term of the contract between himself and the casino, and so have forfeited his winnings.
• No = no breach of contract and the money was his. Ivey argued that “cheating” involved dishonesty, and that since he had not acted dishonestly according to the second limb of the Ghosh test, he had not cheated.

Judge ruled that the second limb of the Ghosh did not represent the true position in law = cheating.

The Court ruled that the second limb of the test was unnecessary and meant that the more “warped” a defendant’s standards of honesty were, the more likely they were to be acquitted. To remedy this problem the Court imported the civil definition of dishonesty into English law (in effect abolishing the second limb of Ghosh).

To put this simply it removed the personal element. Up until now many factors such as people’s culture or warped beliefs allowed them to raise a defence in relation to dishonesty. Claiming they honestly believed their action was not dishonest. This new case removes that element and solely relies on the reasonable person to decide if the action was dishonest

Question 7

Main Initial Sections of the Theft Act

Answer 7

Defining Theft (Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968)

Dishonesty (Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968)

Appropriate (Section 3 of the Theft Act 1968)

Property (Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968)

Belonging (Section 5 of the Theft Act 1968)

Question 8

Appropriate

When do you “appropriate” property?

Answer 8

(s 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968)

If you assume the rights of the owner of property by keeping it or controlling its movements.

An example of this is where someone changes the price on an item in a shop so they end up paying a lower amount. By doing this they have assumed the rights of the owner, as they are setting the price for the item.

Question 9

Appropriate

A person can agree to appropriation, but the consent may be in doubt if the person…

Answer 9

(Section 3 of the Theft Act 1968)

• Has been deceived about the nature of the circumstances.
• Is not of sound mind, this includes learning difficulties.
• Cannot understand the language being spoken

Question 10

What can incur some confusion over stealing when considering section 3?

Answer 10

For property to be stolen it obviously must belong to someone, other than the person stealing it. People can either have possession or control of the property for it to be stolen.

This means, if you put you car in the garage and go and get it from their car park at night with your spare key… could technically be stealing your own car as the garage still have an interest in Jim as the debt hasn’t been settled, meaning your possession and control could be unlawful.

Question 11

In terms of the Theft Act, intent to permanently deprive means what?

Answer 11

(s 6(1) of the Theft Act 1968)

This is complete when someone treats the property as their own. This could include lending and borrowing over an extended timescale and pawning another person’s item.

e.g You borrow someone’s laptop and then decide to lend it to one of your friends. It’s at this point that you intend to permanently deprive them of it as you are treating it as if it is yours to lend.

Question 12

What does Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 discuss?

Answer 12

Property

Property has its usual common meaning of a moveable object or being on an individuals personal property.

However, it also includes things like ideas, intangible items e.g air in an oxygen tank, space in a skip, and trademark logos.

Additionally, things in action, such as rights e.g right to sue.

NOT electricity

Question 13

Property

Can land itself be stolen?

Answer 13

(Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968)

Land itself cannot generally be stolen, e.g if a neighbour moves their fence over onto more land this would not be regarded as theft.

However, if a trustee in charge of an estate or a person with a power of attorney chose to sell another’s land for profit, this could amount to theft.

Additionally, turf, top soil and cultivated trees and shrubs = property, so could amount to theft.

Question 14

When does the taking of wild plants, fruit, flowers and fungi amount to theft?

Answer 14

If they are taken for sale, reward or commercial purpose, or if they are taken in such a way that it cannot grow back.

Question 15

The taking of wild animals from land can be regarded as theft, but only if:

Answer 15

• The animal had been tamed and was being kept in captivity such as in a zoo or a home
• The animal had been killed there without the landowners permission, and taken (i.e poaching)

Question 16

Belonging to a person

Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person when they have…

Answer 16

(Section 5 of the Theft Act 1968)

• A proprietary right or interest, e.g taking a car to the garage, the mechanic has a proprietary right of interest in the car as he has put an investment into it.
• Possession, e.g whoever has the vehicle in his/her possession. Whether this is lawful or not depends on circumstances and timing.
• Control, e.g the mechanic who carries out the repairs on the car.

Question 17

What are the modes of trial and penalties for theft?

Answer 17

The offence of theft is triable either way.

If the value of the property stolen is less than £5,000, the offence is tried summarily (s 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980).

The penalty for this is 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine, or for retail property worth £100 or less a PND can be used.

The penalty on indictment is up to 7 years imprisonment.

Question 18

What police powers apply for entry and search for indictable theft offences?

Answer 18

Police powers apply for entry and search provided under s1 PACE Act 1984 for indictable offences apply for all suspected thefts.

Question 19

Under what section can people be prosecuted for abstracting electricity?

Answer 19

Section 13 of the Theft Act 1968

Can’t use the theft act to do this, so to get around it a new offence was created of abstracting electricity as it does not fall within the definition of ‘property’.

Question 20

What does abstracting mean (e.g abstracting electricity)?

Answer 20

Section 13 of the Theft Act 1968

Abstracting for the purpose of this offence means illegally taking and using something.

Question 21

Abstracting Electricity

A person commits an offence if he/she dishonestly…

Answer 21

(Section 13 of the Theft Act 1968)

Uses without due authority OR dishonestly causes to be wasted or diverted any electricity.

• Have to have an appliance connected to the electricity supply, and then use the electricity to make that appliance work.
• E.g a disgruntled employee turning all the lights and appliances on in the office when they have been fired so that they are left on all weekend.

Question 22

What is the penalty for Abstracting Electricity?

Answer 22

(Section 13 of the Theft Act 1968)

This offence is triable either way and the penalty is 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine if tried summarily and 5 years imprisonment on indictment .

Question 23

What is bilking?

Answer 23

Section 3 of the Theft Act 1978 covers the offence of making off without payment; or as it’s more commonly called, Bilking.

Question 24

An offence of ‘bilking’/ making off without payment/ is often lumped with a number of fraud offences such as fraud by false representation. So why isn’t it covered in the Fraud Act?

Answer 24

That’s because there needs to be some sort of dishonest representation in fraud.

As you will see from the definition for bilking the person obtaining the service must have to pay at the time they receive it but then after receiving the service, decides to not pay and make off without payment.

As there was no dishonest representation at the time they obtained the service, a fraud isn’t made out. Hence why it is not included in the Fraud Act.

Question 25

The offence of bilking only applies to situations where ‘on the spot’ payment is expected for goods or services.

Answer 25

True

Question 26

Section 3 of Theft Act 1978 officially states.

Answer 26

A person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him…

dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and…

…with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.

Question 27

What are some powers a police officer could use to stop vehicles?

Answer 27

s163 Road Traffic Act 1988: a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer.

s4 PACE Act 1984 allows either all vehicles or those selected by a particular criterion to be stopped in a particular locality in order to locate an offender or witness involved in an indictable offence (subject to authorisation).

s60 Criminal Justice and Public Order 1994 gives preventive stop and search powers (subject to authorisation) to the police where violence is anticipated in a particular location.

s43, s44 and s45 Terrorism Act 2000 give preventive stop and search powers to the police when terrorist activity is anticipated in a particular location.

Question 28

What are some powers a police officer could use to seize vehicles?

Answer 28

s165A Road Traffic Act 1988: Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance.

s59 Police Reform Act 2002: Power to seize vehicles driven inconsiderately or carelessly on a road or other public place or, without lawful authority, off road or on any road that is a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway.

s34B Environmental Protection Act 1990: Power to seize vehicles where they have been used to commit a relevant offence.

s173 to 175 Transport Act 2000: Power for police and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to seize untaxed vehicles.

s41 Police Reform Act 2002: Allows chief constables to accredit DVSA staff with the power to stop goods and passenger vehicles.

Section 64 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994: Allows the police to enter land and seize vehicles in relation to rave events.

s45 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Allows the police to seize criminal assets, including vehicles that are subject to a restraint order where it is necessary to prevent the vehicle’s removal from England and Wales.

s19 PACE 1984: Gives general powers of seizure.

s25D Immigration Act 1971: Provides that a senior officer or a constable may detain a relevant ship, aircraft or vehicle if a person has been arrested for an offence under section 25, 25A or 25B of the Immigration Act 1971.

Question 29

Dynamic risk assessment

Officers should carry out a dynamic risk assessment prior to stopping a vehicle and ensure that it is stopped in a position which gives approaching traffic sufficient warning.

There are additional factors to consider when a vehicle(s) is suspected of being involved in terrorism or is believed to be carrying:

Answer 29

• Firearms – in this case specialist advice from a firearms advisor should be sought
• Drugs – the National Crime Agency (NCA) diamond database can provide information on the movements, transportation methods, routes used, packaging, markings and concealment methods
• Vulnerable people – this includes those subjected to child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, kidnap and extortion, mispers and child abduction.

Question 30

What do you need to do if a vehicle is reported as stolen?

Answer 30

Forensic opportunities, especially footwear marks. It would also be a good idea to search the local area.

Obtain as much detail about the car as possible.

Circulate the vehicle on PNC/ANPR (Reported stolen it should have a stolen marker attached to it)

Carry out a historic search on the ANPR (Ask the control room to carry out a historic search of the ANPR system for the stolen vehicle)

Crime Scene Enquiries (Doing house to house, looking for CCTV cameras and searching the local area to see if the vehicle or any property has been abandoned)

Question 31

Technology can transform how the police tackle criminality on the roads. It can also assist in counter-terrorism activity.

Technology available to forces to disrupt criminality includes:

Answer 31

• Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
• CCTV
• Vehicle tracking
• Smartwater – a clear liquid substance only visible under ultraviolet light. It contains a unique code and is used to mark property.
• Roadside fingerprinting (project lantern).
• Facial recognition.
• Average speed safety cameras.
• FIND (facial images national database) project.

Question 32

What is Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)?

Answer 32

An effective way of identifying vehicles and matching them against predetermined indices or flags.

It is a proactive policing tool for response policing and investigations, which can prevent crime by targeting criminals through their use of the roads.

Question 33

Criminals will often try and disguise stolen vehicles so that they are a lot harder to identify. To try and combat this, the motor industry has devised a number of methods to discover the true identity of stolen vehicles.

There are 4 ways to discover the identity of a vehicle. You can use a pneumonic to help you remember them…

Answer 33

VICE

V – Vehicle Identification Number (VIN): this is 17 characters long and is unique to each vehicle. All vehicles made since the 1st of April 1980 should have a VIN number.

I – Index Number or Registration Plate: All mechanically propelled vehicles used on a public road must display a registration number (VRM). This is displayed on the number plate. It is worth bearing in mind however that criminal will often use false registrations from identically looking cars. So even if it appears to be on the right vehicle, if you are in any doubt check the VIN numbers.

C - Chassis Number: This is the same as the VIN number which replaced the old chassis number. As you have seen above every vehicle should have the VIN number identified on the main chassis of the car.

E – Engine Number: Number is stamped on the engine. It is not unusual not to see this number as it is often in a place only visible when the engine is out of the vehicle.

Question 34

There are usually 3 places where a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) is recorded.

Answer 34

Under the bonnet

On the frame inside the door (usually drivers side)

In the bottom section of the windscreen

Question 35

You pass the registration number (VRM) to the control room. The check comes back telling you that the registration is for a car with the same make, model and colour, and that a V23 has been submitted.

Do you just leave it there as these match with the car you have stopped?

Answer 35

NO!

The first warning sign here is that the PNC tells you a V23 has been submitted.

Although this doesn’t confirm the vehicle is stolen, criminals will often steal a car and then switch its identity with an identical vehicle that has been declared as off the road. This means when a check is carried out on the registration, it all appears in order.

Have a look for major alterations; are there any recently added parts, does the car look as if it has been resprayed to a different colour? These are all signs that the car could be stolen. Criminals will often add things like spoilers or new lights/bumpers to try and disguise a car. They will also often respray them to a totally different colour.

This car we have stopped doesn’t seem to have been altered at all. So what next?

It’s now time to start checking for VICE!

Locate the 3 VIN numbers. Two of these match the details held on PNC for the registration, but the other is different. You decide to run a check on this different VIN number. It comes back to a car of the identical make and model, but this vehicle is showing as being stolen AND the two matching VIN numbers look as if they have been welded onto the car.

Question 36

What is a V23?

Answer 36

A V23 is sent to the DVLA by either an insurance company or the police when a vehicle is written off and should no longer be on the roads.

It is legal to repair these vehicles and there will usually be evidence of extensive repairs taking place, such as welding marks.

Question 37

Procedure for checking vehicle VICE details?

Answer 37

Stop the car

Examine the exterior of the car

Request Control to give you the location of the VIN plate and VIN/ chassis stamped in number

Carry out PNC check on the index number or the VIN (reported stolen? v23 submitted?).

Compare the VICE details you have taken from the car with the VICE details on the PNC.

Question 38

Taking Without Owners Consent (TWOC) is covered by what legislation?

Answer 38

Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968.

Question 39

Taking Without Owners Consent (TWOC) definition

Answer 39

A person commits an offence if without having the consent of the owner…or other lawful authority…he/she takes any conveyance for his/her own or another use,

or…

knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such authority…drives it or allows him or herself to be carried in or on it.

Question 40

To meet the conditions of the Taking Without Owners Consent (TWOC) definition the person must know…

Answer 40

That the conveyance has been taken without consent.

There could be cases where someone gets into a vehicle not knowing it has been taken without consent.

As soon as it comes to light they must make efforts to safely leave the vehicle, or the offence will be complete.

Practically though you will find it is often difficult to prove their knowledge around whether the car had been taken without consent or not.

Question 41

Before we can examine the definition of Taking a Conveyance without Consent (TWOC) we first must understand what a conveyance is…?

Answer 41

A conveyance is any equipment constructed or adapted for the carriage of a person or persons whether by land, water or air.

Bikes are excluded from this part of the act and are covered by their own offence.

Question 42

What is Aggravated TWOC?

Answer 42

s12A of the Theft Act 1968

The offence of TWOC is “aggravated” if it is committed in respect of mechanically propelled vehicle and at least one of the following circumstances occurred after the vehicle was taken and before it was recovered:

• it was driven dangerously on a road or public place; or
• it caused an accident in which somebody was injured; or
• it caused damage to property; or
• the vehicle itself was damaged.

Question 43

For aggravated TWOC, the damage caused can be to anything and the injury can be to anyone and includes things like shock.

The key aspect here is that the injury or damage occurred in one of these circumstances:

Answer 43

When the vehicle was being driven dangerously on a road or other public place. It will be up to the court to decide if these elements are met.

When an accident occurred due to the driving of the vehicle which caused injury to any person or damage to something other than the vehicle. An accident in relation to this offence is a much looser term than is used in the usual legal definition. If “an ordinary person” would call it an accident then for this offence, it is.

When the vehicle suffers damage AFTER being taken. This could be from colliding with something. This can be caused by a person other than the person who took the vehicle and can include the vehicle being damaged whilst it is parked up, before it is recovered.

Question 44

Taking a Pedal Cycle Without Consent

What is the specific legislation that covers this?

Answer 44

(Section 12(5) of the Theft Act 1968)

This is a fairly simple offence and it covers the same principals as TWOC, but only includes pedal cycles. It also captures people who ride a pedal cycle knowing that it has been taken by another person without consent or lawful authority.

The penalty is 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine.

Question 45

What is the definition for Vehicle Interference?

Answer 45

Section 9(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

It states that it is an offence for a person to interfere with a motor vehicle or trailer, or with anything carried in or on a motor vehicle or trailer with the intention of committing:

• Theft of the motor vehicle or part of it
• Theft of anything carried in or on the motor vehicle or trailer
• The offence of taking a conveyance (TWOC)

We don’t have to prove which of the three offences the suspect had the intent of carrying out. What we need to do is prove they had the intent to commit one of them.

The act also needs to be more than preparatory, so they have to actually attempt to do something, stopping them just before they do it won’t be enough to prosecute them.

Question 46

Case law provides a number of clarifications in relation to this offence

Answer 46

For a floating conveyance the movement can be caused by a sail but cannot be by natural movement created by waves or water currents.

A conveyance much be taken for the purpose of being used as such and not just for mischief.

A vehicle ceases to be taken once it has been recovered by the victim, police or insurance company.

Question 47

Legislation allows which other lawful people to relocate a conveyance, for example:

Answer 47

Bailiffs can remove a vehicle where loan repayments are overdue.

The police or the DVLA can remove a vehicle that appears to have been abandoned; and

The Fire and Rescue Services or the local council can remove an inappropriately parked vehicle.

Question 48

Taking Without Owners Consent (TWOC)

What is a possible defence for s 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 48

s 12(6) of the Theft Act 1968

The person believes that he/she has the consent of the owner or had lawful authority.

Question 49

Taking Without Owners Consent (TWOC)

What are the penalties for s 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 49

Triable summarily and the penalty is 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine.

Question 50

Aggravated Taking Without Owners Consent (TWOC)

What is a possible defence for s 12A of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 50

That the dangerous driving, damage or accident had occurred before the suspect took the vehicle, or that he/she was not in or on the vehicle, or in its immediate vicinity when the dangerous driving, accident or damage occurred (s 12A(5)).

Question 51

Aggravated Taking Without Owners Consent (TWOC)

What are the penalties for s 12A of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 51

Triable either way

Summarily if the value of the property damaged or destroyed is less than £5,000 (s 22 of the Magistrates Courts Acts 1980), penalty is a fine (no upper limit) or imprisonment 6 months.

Indictment is two years and if the accident caused death the penalty is up to 14 years’ imprisonment.

Question 52

Interference and tampering with motor vehicles

Section 9(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 states that it is an offence for a person to interfere with a motor vehicle or trailer, or with anything carried in or on a motor vehicle or trailer with the intention of committing:

Answer 52

• ‘theft of the motor vehicle or part of it’
• ‘theft of anything carried in or on the motor vehicle or trailer’
• the offence of taking a conveyance

Question 53

Interference and tampering with motor vehicles

What does s 25(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 state?

Answer 53

It is an offence for a person without lawful authority or reasonable cause to tamper with the brake or any other part of its mechanism, or to get on or into the vehicle.

This applies to motor vehicles on a road or in a local authority parking place.

It is a summary offence and the penalty is a fine or imprisonment for up the three months.

Question 54

I have a customer account with the garage, so I can’t commit the offence of bilking if I drive off without paying for my fuel.

Answer 54

True

The offence is only complete where payment on the spot is required and that the person is required or expected to pay there and then. So if you have a credit agreement or “tab” with the business then this implies some uncertainty as to whether payment is expected on the spot or not. So you can’t commit the offence.

Question 55

You attend a hairdressers where you believe your friend is the manager. They always give you a free haircut. This time someone else cuts your hair and you leave making no attempt to pay. It later transpires that your friend has been fired and the shop is under new management so they can no longer give out free haircuts. In this situation bilking has been committed.

Answer 55

False

This is where the standard definition of dishonesty comes in. For this example the person had an honest held belief that he would have the owner’s consent to get a free haircut.

Question 56

I have committed the offence of bilking when I leave a restaurant after eating a meal and forget to pay and later realise but then do not go back and pay.

Answer 56

True

Although leaving the restaurant was a mistake and there was no intent behind it. As soon as they realised they hadn’t paid then they should have returned and paid for the goods. As such the offence is made out. You will often find that when dealing with bilking, especially of fuel, people often claim to have just forgotten to pay.

Question 57

John notices an old bike in the street outside his block of flats. It hasn’t moved in a few weeks and John thinks it might have been stolen and then dumped there. Instead of trying to find the owner John thinks he should keep the bike for himself and takes it up to his flat. He files off the frame number and paints it a different colour so that if the original owner saw him on it they wouldn’t recognise it.

In fact, the owner had actually bought a new bike and had dumped his old one that John now has outside the block of flats because he didn’t want it any more.
At what stage, if at all, does John commit theft contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 57

At no stage

The property did not belong to anyone. The previous owner had given up the right, interest, possession and control of the bike when he left it outside the flats.

Question 58

Sharon asks her friend Kevin if she can borrow his van for the weekend to take some belongings to her mothers in Scotland. Kevin agrees however, Sharon has actually lied to Kevin and uses the van to drive to France for the weekend to collect some cheap food and drink. She returns the van when agreed and there is no damage caused.

Has Sharon committed the offence of TWOC under section 12 of the Theft Act?

Answer 58

No, the deception does not negate the consent she obtained from the owner

Surprised? This is where case law comes in. In the case of R v Peart from 1970 the defendant was convicted of TWOC after borrowing a friend’s car with an agreement it was to drive from one town to another. Instead he drove to a totally different town. He was initially convicted but on appeal the sentence was quashed. Why? Well they found that there was no general principal of law that fraud vitiates consent. So if consent is obtained by Fraud, it is still consent in the eyes of the law.

Question 59

Chris is out shopping with his 5 year old daughter. Whilst they are in the shop, his daughter picks up a teddy. Chris doesn’t see this and they walk out the shop. Half an hour later Chris notices that his daughter is holding the teddy and realises what has happened. Chris has a think about what to do and decides it would be too much effort to go back to the shop so he lets his daughter keep it.

Which of the following statements is true regarding Chris’s actions?

Answer 59

Chris is guilty of theft because although he came by the property innocently, his later assumption of the rights of the owner (letting his daughter keep it) amounts to appropriation

As Chris’s daughter is under the age of criminal intent (10 years) she cannot commit the theft. Chris was initially unaware of what happened however as soon as he did become aware he should have returned the teddy to the shop. As he didn’t this is when the full definition is complete as he has assumed the rights of the owner by keeping it.

Question 60

Aggravated TWOC penalty

Answer 60

Either way offence

Summary: Six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

Indictment: Two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, if the injury was fatal, the maximum penalty is increased to 14 years.