Asif: A Person Is Guilty Of Theft
Theft
Asif is liable for theft. This can be seen in the Theft Act 1968 amended by Theft Act 1978. Under s.1 (1) 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.’ However the Actus reus and the Mens rea have to be taken into account when dealing with Theft. The Actus reus is appropriating property belonging to another. The Mens rea is dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive. In this case Asif commits the actus reus by appropriating the property but does not have the mens rea, as he is confident that he will be able to replace it without his colleague noticing.
In s.3 Theft Act 1968, it states, ‘any assumption of the …show more content…
In Section 9 Theft Act 1968: under s9(1)(a) the crime is committed where: the defendant enters a building or part of one as a trespasser with the intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage to the building or anything inside it. This offence is committed at the time of entry into the property (the point of trespass).
The crime of rape and trespass used to be included here but it is now a separate offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Under s9(1)(b) of the Theft Act. The offence is committed where: a person steals or inflicts GBH on another, after he has entered as a trespasser, or attempts to do either of these two things. This offence is committed not at the time of entry but at the time of committing the ulterior offence.
The difference between section (a) and (b) is under subsection (a), the offender must intend to steal or commit other offences laid down at the time he trespasses. Under subsection (b) the intent to steal can be formed after the trespass. Section 9(1)(b) only applies to theft and GBH, but unlike s9(1)(a), also includes attempts to do either of these things. The maximum sentence is laid down in s9(3) and is 14 years imprisonment when committed in respect of a …show more content…
Secondly, the Defendant needed to have entered as a trespasser, which was far more difficult to decide upon. Lastly, he had to have intended, at the time of entry to commit rape. The court stated that “unless the jury were satisfied that the Defendant made an effective and substantial entry into the bedroom without the complainant doing or saying anything to cause him to believe that she was consenting to his entering it, he ought not to be convicted of the offence charged. The point is a narrow one, as narrow as maybe the window sill which is crucial to this case. But this is a criminal charge of gravity and, even though one may suspect that his intention was to commit the offence charged, unless the facts show with clarity that he in fact committed it he ought not to remain
Asif is liable for theft. This can be seen in the Theft Act 1968 amended by Theft Act 1978. Under s.1 (1) 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.’ However the Actus reus and the Mens rea have to be taken into account when dealing with Theft. The Actus reus is appropriating property belonging to another. The Mens rea is dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive. In this case Asif commits the actus reus by appropriating the property but does not have the mens rea, as he is confident that he will be able to replace it without his colleague noticing.
In s.3 Theft Act 1968, it states, ‘any assumption of the …show more content…
In Section 9 Theft Act 1968: under s9(1)(a) the crime is committed where: the defendant enters a building or part of one as a trespasser with the intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage to the building or anything inside it. This offence is committed at the time of entry into the property (the point of trespass).
The crime of rape and trespass used to be included here but it is now a separate offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Under s9(1)(b) of the Theft Act. The offence is committed where: a person steals or inflicts GBH on another, after he has entered as a trespasser, or attempts to do either of these two things. This offence is committed not at the time of entry but at the time of committing the ulterior offence.
The difference between section (a) and (b) is under subsection (a), the offender must intend to steal or commit other offences laid down at the time he trespasses. Under subsection (b) the intent to steal can be formed after the trespass. Section 9(1)(b) only applies to theft and GBH, but unlike s9(1)(a), also includes attempts to do either of these things. The maximum sentence is laid down in s9(3) and is 14 years imprisonment when committed in respect of a …show more content…
Secondly, the Defendant needed to have entered as a trespasser, which was far more difficult to decide upon. Lastly, he had to have intended, at the time of entry to commit rape. The court stated that “unless the jury were satisfied that the Defendant made an effective and substantial entry into the bedroom without the complainant doing or saying anything to cause him to believe that she was consenting to his entering it, he ought not to be convicted of the offence charged. The point is a narrow one, as narrow as maybe the window sill which is crucial to this case. But this is a criminal charge of gravity and, even though one may suspect that his intention was to commit the offence charged, unless the facts show with clarity that he in fact committed it he ought not to remain