UNIT 4: A* ANSWER TO JUNE 2014 SCEN 1

June 2014 Scenario 1 question 01 Full marks 

This problem question was done in timed conditions as part of my mock exam at college, it got grade A*  being full marks! (25/25) - covers theft robbery burglary and making off.

Harry may be criminally liable for Theft under s1 of The Theft Act 1968. Theft occurs when a person "dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Appropriation under s3(1) is "any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner" which occurred as soon as Harry assumed the right to take the bicycle "harry took the bicycle" R v Morris.  Property wise this is clearly personal under s4(1). The bicycle remains  belonging to Earl under s5(1), regardless of the bicycle remaining in the true ownership of Harry R v Turner since Earl is nevertheless in "possession or control" of it as he is carrying out its repairs. Harry is unlikely to fit any exceptions under s2 calling for an application of Gosh. Harry’s actions may well be deemed dishonest by the standards of ordinary and reasonable people, especially since he chose to take the bike without correctly paying for its repair fees. It’s likely he also realised this since the facts in the scenario state "he changed his mind". Harry could also be said to have an intention to permanently deprive under s6(1) since he disposed regardless of Earls rights at that moment in time by taking the bike unpaid for, DPP v Lavendar. Theft is a likely outcome.

He could also be possibly liable for s8 Robbery within The Theft Act 1968.  Since theft is a pre-condition for liability, this has been satisfied R v Robinson.  It can be said that force has been used, "harry pushed earl" which is clearly sufficient. Furthermore it has to be done in order to steal, R v Donaghy and Marshall which it clearly has since "Earl rushed towards him"; without harry pushing him it’s likely the theft would not have succeeded. This also has to happen immediately before or at the time of doing so which it arguably has, "harry pushed earl" and then "took the bicycle" R v Hale. Finally Harry needs an intention to use force in order to steal, which is likely since he could be said to have desired earl to fall as this would help the theft of the Bike, R v Mohan

Harry could also be liable for Burglary under s9 of The Theft Act 1968. He could be liable for both 91a and b. Harry has entered R v Ryan "Harry entered the unlocked shed" as a trespasser perhaps, R v Collins  as we are aware he probably lacked permission "he knew earl was away at the time" into a building or part (s94 covers inhabitable vehicles or vessels) as the shed is likely to remain there Norfolk constabulary v Seekings and Gould He also has the initial intention prior to entry to commit theft "decided to get his bike back without paying" as was reckless as to whether earl would of given permission. He could also be guilty under s91b as having entered he actually committed theft and s20 GBH by "causing him to fall and cut his arm". Perhaps he had the intention then and there to commit gbh, or even being merely reckless R v Cunningham

Harry  may even be liable for making off without payment set out under s3. Goods or services need to be supplied (the repair of the bike) and completed, "earl told harry that he had finished repairing the bike" Troughton v MPC. Furthermore its likely payment on the spot was required or expected since the spot ( a question of fact, R v Mcdavvit) remained in the shed. Perhaps he even made off "harry took the bicycle". Mens rea wise this offence is likely since Harry knows payment was expected since he agreed to his arrangement, thus he is dishonest as previously clarified. He also could have an intention to permanently avoid payment, R v Allen - perhaps clarified when harry said "no way" to earls demand for payment. In that sense, an upholding of this conviction proves likely.