Criminal Law: Theft and Fraud

Running Head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
0
Criminal Law
Controversial issues
4/30/2019
Student’s Name

Criminal Law
1
Contents
Part A...............................................................................................................................................2
Theft 2
Fraud 3
Part B...............................................................................................................................................5
(a) Preparation and Attempt 5
(B) Consent as Defence to Non-Fatal Offences 7

Criminal Law
2
Part A
For the presentation of this report, topic C of part A i.e. Theft and Fraud have been selected.
These terms seem to be similar sometimes and people often face confusion while developing an
understanding on the same. In the presented report, the discussion will be made on meaning,
backgrounds, relative legislation, and case laws related to both of the subjective topics.
Theft
Theft is defined under section 1 of the Theft Act 19681. According to this section, theft is an act
whereby a person appropriates property/assets belonging to others with a dishonest intention of
depriving the other of it permanently. As per the section 2 of the act, a person’s appropriation of
property belonging to other will not be treated as dishonest if the same has believed that he/she
has right to deprive the other out of it or he/she will the consent of other if the other knew about
appropriation. This section is developed based on the principles of Mens Rea and like to state
that to prove a dishonestly an intention of guilty mind must be presented there. The similar kinds
of provisions are mentioned under section 6 of the act. As per this section intention of the person
must be depriving the other of it permanently and not for just a particular time period. If to
elaborate on the definition of theft, certain requirements come out of the same. These
requirements are the elements that must be there to prove theft and mentioned below:-
 Appropriation
 Property
 Belonging to another
 Dishonesty
 Intention to deprive permanently
1 Theft Act 1968

Criminal Law
3
Appropriation is one of the important elements of theft that been discussed in many of the cases.
It was held in the case of Lawrence v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner2 that appropriation of a
property for the purpose of theft Act 1968 can also occur with the consent of the owner. Many of
the issues seem to be there in current law depending on the decision of past cases. These issues
mainly include a wider scope of the offence. By reviewing the decision of the case of Eddy v.
Niman3 it is clear that irrespective of the intention and consent, an act of a person will be treated
theft if he/she permanently appropriates property of other. The other issues are that there is an
overemphasis on Mens Rea. Further the current provision of Theft Act 1968 demolished the
difference between theft and fraud and therefore some reforms are necessary for the current law.
R v Ghosh4 provides Ghosh Test that juries often use to check the dishonesty of person. The test
is not entirely subjective test. And need certain modifications. The major reform is required in
the definition of dishonesty. As offered by Professor Glazebrook, everything that does not come
under the category of dishonesty must be codified under the act5. The other suggestion is that
using the definition of Larceny Act 19166, a different test of Mens Rea should be developed
removing the term fraudulently as it would be hard to check that whether an act is fraudulent or
not7.
Fraud
2 Lawrence v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626
3 Eddy v. Niman (1981) 73 Cr App R 237
4 R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2
5 Faizan Sadiq, Dishonesty And Theft: Time For Change? (Web page) <http://thestudentlawyer.com/>.
6 Larceny Act 1916
7 Keepcalmtalklaw.co.uk, Redefining The Determination Of 'Theft' (Web Page, 19 September 2014) <
http://www.keepcalmtalklaw.co.uk/redefining-the-determination-of-theft/ >.