Factors Influencing Criminal Behaviour

This assignment delves into the multifaceted factors that contribute to criminal behavior. It requires students to analyze a range of academic sources, including books, journals, and online articles, to explore theories and empirical evidence related to the causes of crime. The assignment covers social, economic, biological, and psychological influences on offending, encouraging critical thinking about the complex interplay of these factors.

Property Offences

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
TASK 1............................................................................................................................................1
a. Analysis of offence of theft with reference to appropriate actus reus and mens rea...............1
b. Analysis of offence of robbery................................................................................................2
TASK 2............................................................................................................................................2
a. Analysis of offence of burglary with reference to appropriate actus reus and mens rea.........2
b. Analysis of offence of aggravated burglary............................................................................4
TASK 3............................................................................................................................................5
a. Difference between handling, receiving, undertaking and assisting stolen goods..................5
b. Analysis of offence of 'making off without payment' with reference to appropriate actus
reus and mens rea........................................................................................................................5
TASK 4............................................................................................................................................6
a. Fraud by false representation..................................................................................................6
b. Fraud by failing to disclose information.................................................................................7
c. Fraud by abuse of position......................................................................................................7
d. Obtaining services dishonesty.................................................................................................7
TASK 5............................................................................................................................................7
a. Offence of criminal damage....................................................................................................7
b. Offence of aggravated criminal damage.................................................................................8
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................8
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION
Property offences are the crimes related to someone else's properties. These offences can
be of two types first is stolen property and second is destroyed property. According to Theft Act
and Fraud Act. Property can be money or any other tangible products. In this project report, an
understanding about various offences is provided with the use of various appropriate laws and
acts. A detailed understanding about various theft concepts such as theft, robbery, burglary and
aggravated burglary is described along with other goods related offences. . The main aim of this
report is to discuss several crimes and their related laws which are developed by government of
United Kingdom. The concept of fraud is discussed in detail in this project to provide an
overview about various types of frauds such as false representation, failing to disclose
information, abuse of position and obtaining services dishonestly (Burnett, 2013). All the
offences are mentioned along with their actus reus and mens rea so that few evidences can be
attached. Criminal damages are also mentioned in this report.
TASK 1
a. Analysis of offence of theft with reference to appropriate actus reus and mens rea
According to Section1(1) of the Theft Act 1968, a person is guilty of theft when he/she
dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it. In other words, theft is an act of stealing someone's property without the
consent of owner with the intent of depriving the owner.
Actus Reus of theft:
Actus reus is an element of offence in which an individual must have a guilty conduct by
the defendant. It is a conduct which is related with external and physical element, the maximum
punishment which can be imposed on a defendant is seven years; according to Criminal Justice
Act 1991. Actus Reus of theft can be classified into three categories which are mentioned below:
Appropriation – According to the Section 3(1) of Theft Act 1968, appropriation is an
act where defendant assumes that he/she is the rightful owner of a property then they will be
guilty of theft (Clancey and Lulham, 2013).
1

Property – This category is mentioned in Section 4(1) of Theft Act 1968, property is a
tangible item which can include money or any other personal asset. Land, plants and even
animals can be included in Property.
Belonging to another – Any property is known as belonging of other if they have
possession of that item or have control over it, this control can be whole or partial. This class is
stated in Section 5(1) of Theft Act 1968.
Mens rea of theft:
Mens rea is the internal and mental element of an offence which states the intention and
knowledge of wrongdoing. Mens rea of a theft includes that unless the mind is guilty the
defendant is not culpable of crime. This includes following categories:
Dishonesty – A defendant is said to be dishonest when they assume that they have a right
over someone's else property or if they appropriations that they have owner's lawful consent to
use or destroy their property (Fergusson, 2012).
Intention to permanently deprive – A defendant cannot be said as guilty of theft, unless
they have intention to permanently deprive someone's property. While depriving from property,
state of mind of defendant should be evident.
b. Analysis of offence of robbery
According to Section 8 of Theft Act, 1968, Robbery is the crime of attempting to take
someone's else property by force or by putting victim in fear. It is an act of assaulting someone in
order to permanently depriving their property. It is a form of theft but includes force and assault.
In United Kingdom, this crime is controlled by Theft act, which gives actus reus and mans rea
for this crime. According to which a defendant cannot be said guilty unless there is an immediate
force or fear of force (actus reus). Mens rea of robbery states that theft must be with an intent to
steal. Force can be actual or threatening, both will result into an offence (Heerde and Hemphill,
2015).
TASK 2
a. Analysis of offence of burglary with reference to appropriate actus reus and mens rea
The offence of burglary is defined under Section 9 of Theft Act 1968, according to which
burglary is a crime when a defendant enters in someone's else property with the intend of
stealing. It is an act of trespassing into victim's property in order to commit any offence which
2

includes stealing or an attempt of steal. Subsections of this act includes that any grievous bodily
harm and act of rape also includes in this offence along with subsequent offence.
Actus Reus of Burglary:
This element deals with physical aspects of a crime. In the case of burglary, entry in
someone's property or building and act of trespassing is actus reus. Following are the few
components of actus reus of offence of burglary:
Building – According to Section 9(4), a building is the premises which includes whole of
building, a part of building and any vehicle or vessel associated with that building. Part of
building can incorporate a room or any area of building (Kirschbaum, 2013).
Entry – According to this component, a defendant is said to be guilty when he/she enters
in someone's else building or property. The act of entry includes trespassing without the consent
of owner. In accordance to be eligible for the offence, an entry should be an effective entry
which is related with the substantial amount of entry. Even if there is a consent of owner and
defendant goes beyond the possessor then the defendant will be deemed to enter as a trespasser.
Trespass – The term trespass in civil law is described as the effective entry in someone
else's property without the consent of owner and with an intention to cause permanent damage.
For example: In the case of R v Jones & Smith [1976], two appellants went to the home of one
of their parents and stole two television sets and the father gave evidence stating that his son had
permitted to enter in the house.
Judgement: Even after having permission of entering in the house, the defendants exceeded their
permission and steal television sets and thus help to be trespassers.
Mens rea of Burglary:
Mens rea deals with mental state of the appellant, In the case of burglary, a defendant is
not considered as guilty unless he/she has intent to trespass into someone's property. Any
defendant is not held guilty for burglary unless they fulfil below components:
Ulterior offences – According to Section 9(1)(a) of Theft Act 1968, a defendant must
have an intention of ulterior offences. Ulterior offences include set of crimes or multiple crimes.
A defendant must trespass with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm to owner of
property, theft and causing criminal damage.
3

b. Analysis of offence of aggravated burglary
Aggravated burglary is mentioned in the Section 10 of Theft Act, 1968, according to
which an individual is said to be guilty for aggravated burglary if he/she commits any burglary
by using a weapon, firearm or explosive. A firearm is an airgun or air pistol which can be
harmful. Explosive is any article which is manufactured with an intention of causing harm. A
defendant help guilty for this crime is liable for life time imprisonment. The above mentioned
weapon must be with the guilty person at the time, when burglary was committed. An ordinary
tool which is used to cause harm will also be considered as a weapon.
According to Theft Act 1968, theft, burglary, robbery and aggravated burglary are
different and few of their variations are discussed below:
Theft Robbery Burglary Aggravated Burglary
Theft is an act, where
defendant takes or
steals someone's
property without their
consent in order to
cause permanent
deprive.
Robbery is a violence
act, in which
defendant cause some
physical harm or cause
fear of physical harm
in order to steal
someone's property.
In the case of
Burglary, defendant
trespasses someone's
else property with the
intention of theft.
It is the most
punishable crime, as it
involves multiple
crimes such as theft,
bodily harm and use of
a weapon.
For example: If an
individual steals 6000
dollars from someone
or steals products or
services worth this
amount then the
defendant is liable for
7 years of
imprisonment.
For example: When a
defendant steals 50000
dollars from a victim
by causing fear of
bodily harm and show
a weapon, then this
case will be
considered as robbery.
Against this crime,
defendant is liable for
at least 7 years of
imprisonment.
For example: When a
defendant enters in
someone's property
and steals 5000 dollars
or any product then
he/she will be liable
for 7 years of
imprisonment.
For example: If a
defendant conducts
multiple crimes with
the intend of steal
something. These
crimes can be theft
along with causing
bodily harm and use of
weapon, then the
defendant is liable for
life time
imprisonment.
4

TASK 3
a. Difference between handling, receiving, undertaking and assisting stolen goods
According to Theft Act, 1968 theft is an act of stealing properties such as products,
money or services. Along with stealing, even handling these properties are a criminal offence.
This criminal offence is needed to be proved by four elements and that is accused of handling
goods, goods must be stolen at the time they were accused, the accused individual should know
that those goods are stolen and the intention of accused person is dishonest (Lappi-Seppälä,
2012).
These stolen goods can be handled, received or undertaken by the accused defendant and
in order to better understand this concept difference between these states are discussed below:
Handling of stolen goods – In the case of handling, goods includes money and any other
asset except land and any property acquired from land. Handling goods is an act of keeping
stolen goods with them. The individual who handled these goods are also liable and accused
under Theft Act, 1968.
Receiving of stolen goods – This is a state when an individual receives stolen goods and
possess them knowing the goods are stolen. An individual is not accused unless intend of having
a custody or control over goods is proved. Person who possess the stolen property is referred as
third party and is liable for punishments and penalties.
Undertaking of stolen goods – When an individual has undertaken an activity of
retention, removal, disposal or realization of stolen goods by itself then can be accused in Theft
Act. This undertaking needs intention of defendant to cause of carrying illegal activity.
Assisting of stolen goods – According to this component, an individual is accused when
he or she is involved in assisting the handling of goods. This assistance can be whole or partial.
For example, if an individual lied from police about stolen goods then he/she will be held liable
under this act. This assistance can be involved in various handling activities such as removal,
retention, disposal or realization of stolen goods (Machin, 2011).
b. Analysis of offence of 'making off without payment' with reference to appropriate actus reus
and mens rea
Making off without payment is an act of not paying any or partial value of supplied goods
or services. This act is considered as crime under Criminal law and is punishable and penalised.
5

Prior to the creation of this law, this act was not considered as crime. The main aim of
developing remedies against this event is to avoid practice of this event. This activity is
mentioned under Section 3 of Theft Act, 1968 according to which a person is guilty when he or
she dishonestly makes off without paying for supplied goods. The maximum sentence against
this offence is 2 years. A person cannot be accused of making off without payment if there is no
wrong intention. In order to understand this offence, its elements are mentioned below:
Actus reus: The physical component of making off without payment consist various
factors which are:
Makes off – When an individual makes off it means they depart from that place without
paying anything against the rendered goods or services (Reiner, 2012).
Without payment – When the accused person departs from the place without paying
anything or paying partial amount of products or services. A person cannot be accused in this
case unless he or she has departed without paying any amount.
Payment expected on spot – If order to prove an individual a criminal it is important to
have acknowledgement about the fact that the payment is required at a particular spot. No matter
how dishonest intention of an individual is there, he or she cannot be held liable unless they have
known about the spot of payment.
Mens rea:
Mens rea deals with mental knowledge of a crime. In this case components of this
offence are mentioned below:
Intention to avoid payment – In order to prove an accused person criminal it is
important to evidently mention that the person has intention to avoid payment. This intention
must be permanent in nature (Ttofi, 2011).
Dishonesty – In this case, accused individual must be dishonest about the intention of
payment.
TASK 4
a. Fraud by false representation
It is a state where a person try to make a gain for himself and to cause loss to another. A
false representation relates to misleading which means that the person who is misleading another
knows that it is untrue. If a person found guilty in fraud act then he is liable to pay a fine or have
6

to go to in police custody for twelve months. In this law there is no requisition to prove that the
victim believed or acted on the wrong content presented by the guilty person (Vettenburg, 2013).
b. Fraud by failing to disclose information
This act refers to the situation where one person fails to disclose the information to
another person when they are in a contract or an agreement or they may be under a legal duty to
disclose such type of information. This type of fraud case offense is treated strictly by the courts.
If the person found guilty and this has been proved that the information is not disclosed willingly
the supreme punishment for this type of fraud is ten years’ imprisonment (Fraud by failing to
disclose information, 2017).
c. Fraud by abuse of position
This act can be defined as a case where a person is occupying a position where he/ she is
anticipated to secure the financial involvement of another person but the person does not act
appropriately and abuse his/ her position. It includes the abuse that consist a mistake rather than
an visible enactment. In this act the person is not supposed to act against the interest on another
person. The intention of such type of frauds is to cover the dishonourable mistreatment of a
position of financial responsibility. This can also create a number of other offensive activities
such as possession of articles for use in fraud and involved in a fraudulent business.
d. Obtaining services dishonesty
According to Section 11 of Fraud Act 2006, an individual is said to be accused for
obtaining services dishonestly if he or she has fulfilled some requirements. These needs are that
the products or service that they have obtained should has some value or should be held for sale.
The intention of the individual must be dishonest. There must be no value or amount has to be
paid for obtained services and there must be a intent of not paying anything in the first place.
TASK 5
a. Offence of criminal damage
The offence of criminal damage is mentioned in Criminal Damage Act, 1971. Under this
act, offence of criminal damage is stated as if any individual has destroyed or threatened to
destroy a property then he or she will be liable under this offence. Actus reus of this offence
includes components of mandatory damage or destroy of a property and that property must be
belonging to some other party or individual (Warner, 2011).
7

According to Criminal damage act, mens rea of this offence includes components such as
intention and recklessness. There must be an intention of causing damage to property and that
intention must be reckless.
b. Offence of aggravated criminal damage
Aggravated criminal damage is an offence where an individual has destroyed or damaged
a property in addition to which the accused individual has also endangered someone's life. This
offence is also discussed in Criminal damage act 1971. Actus reus of this offence includes
various components such as destroy and damage of someone else's property. That property must
be belonging to someone else and while destroying the property, accused person should
endangered someone's life (Young, 2011).
CONCLUSION
From the above project report, it can be concluded that in order to study all the offences
mentioned such as burglary, theft, robbery, fraud by false representation and failing to disclose
information, Fraud act 2006 and Theft Act 1968 are the most appropriate acts of Criminal Law,
United Kingdom. It has been seen that every offence has some specific actus reus and mens rea
from which remedies and penalties can be ascertained. After analysing levels of offences, it has
observed that unless a crime is aggravated there is no life time imprisonment. It has been seen
that every act of theft has different remedies and punishments which are mentioned in a single
act and that is Theft Act. Significance of this project report can be concluded as, all these thefts
and frauds are the common practice in current scenario and remedies for these crimes should be
acknowledged by everyone.
8

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Burnett, R., 2013. To reoffend or not to reoffend? The ambivalence of convicted
propertyBurnett, 2013Clancey, and Lulham2013Fergusson, D2012Heerde, and
Hemphill2015Kirschbaum, 2013.Lappi-Seppälä, 2012Machin, 2011Reiner, 2012Ttofi,
2011Vettenburg, 20132011Warner, Young, S2011 offenders. In After crime and
punishment (pp. 170-198). Willan.
Clancey, G. and Lulham, R., 2013. The new South Wales property crime decline. Current Issues
Crim. Just.. 25 p.839.
Fergusson, D. M., and et. al., 2012. Moderating role of the MAOA genotype in antisocial
behaviour. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 200(2). pp.116-123.
Heerde, J. A. and Hemphill, S. A., 2015, April. Is substance use associated with perpetration and
victimization of physically violent behavior and property offences among homeless
youth? A systematic review of international studies. In Child & Youth Care Forum Vol.
44. No. 2. pp. 277-307). Springer US.
Kirschbaum, K. M., and et. al., 2013. Illegal drugs and delinquency. Forensic science
international. 226(1-3). pp.230-234.
Lappi-Seppälä, T., 2012. Criminology, crime and criminal justice in Finland. European Journal
of Criminology. 9(2). pp.206-222.
Machin, S., Marie, O. and Vujić, S., 2011. The crime reducing effect of education. The
Economic Journal. 121(552), pp.463-484.
Reiner, R. and Jessica Allen, S. L., 2012. NO MORE HAPPY ENDINGS?. Crime, risk and
insecurity: Law and order in everyday life and political discourse, p.107.
Ttofi, M. M., and et. al., 2011. The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later
offending: A systematic/meta‐analytic review of longitudinal studies. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health. 21(2). pp.80-89.
Vettenburg, N., Brondeel, R., Gavray, C. and Pauwels, L. J., 2013. Societal vulnerability and
adolescent offending: The role of violent values, self-control and troublesome youth
group involvement. European Journal of Criminology. 10(4). pp.444-461.
Warner, K., Davis, J., Walter, M., Bradfield, R. and Vermey, R., 2011. Public judgement on
sentencing: Final results from the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study.
Young, S. and Thome, J., 2011. ADHD and offenders. The World Journal of Biological
Psychiatry. 12(sup1), pp.124-128.
Online
Fraud by failing to disclose information. 2017. [Online].Available through:
<http://www.bestcriminaldefencebarrister.co.uk/criminal-defence-barrister-blog/2014/
october/23/fraud-by-failing-to-disclose-information.aspx>
9