Liability for Theft, Criminal Damage and Manslaughter: Analysis of Sam and Jamie's Case

Question 1

Table of Contents
A. Sam’s liability for theft in respect of the can of energy drink..............................................................3
Dishonestly..........................................................................................................................................4
Appropriates........................................................................................................................................4
“Property”............................................................................................................................................4
“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.............................................................5
B. Jamie’s liability for the criminal damage in respect of the glass roof..................................................6
C. Jamie’s liability for Manslaughter in respect of manager death...........................................................8
References.................................................................................................................................................10

A. Sam’s liability for theft in respect of the can of energy drink
In order to generalize the each and every factors related with this case it is necessary to
evaluate the whole situation as per to find out the most appropriate decision. For the given
scenario as Sam after having the photograph session with his friend Jamie took an energy drink
from the shelf of a store and run away without paying at the store. With the help of theft act, it
can exactly identify the full scenario and take effect decision. The explanation about the theft act
are given below -
Theft act
It is analyzed that this act is passed in 1968 by the United Kingdom's Parliament. In
England &Wales, it establishes a variety of property-related offenses. The Fraud Act 2006 went
into effect on January 15, 2007, classifying the majority of deceit charges. The stealing offense is
established under this section. Sections 2 through 6 add to this definition. 'A guy is convicted of
theft if he disingenuously acquires the proprietary right to another on the aim of completely
depriving someone else of it; &"thief “&” steal" should be understood appropriately,' according
to the Theft Act 1968. There are various types of essential elements are involved in this act that
can be related to the situation of the case and the explanation of appropriate essential elements is
discussed below-
Dishonestly
A person's provision of another's property is not considered disingenuous if he does so in
the belief that he has the legal intention to permanently deprive the other of it on behalf of
himself or a third party; or if he does so in the presumption that if the other knew about the
acknowledgment &the conditions, someone else would surrender; or if he does so in the
believing that when another realized about the recognition and conditions, others would assent,
For the case study provided Sam adopts the assets in the knowledge that the person whom the
please take the necessary cannot be found by taking proper means (Bernstein, 2001). A person's
misappropriation of another person's property may well be dishonest, even whether he is ready to
pay for the item. This essential element is related to the dishonesty and the main concern is the
dishonesty of the person which is directly related to Sam's case.