Legal Case Study: Analyzing Liability for Theft, Damage, Manslaughter

This case study analyzes the criminal liability of Sam and Jamie in separate incidents. Sam is examined for theft after taking an energy drink from a store without paying. The analysis considers elements of the Theft Act 1968, including dishonesty, appropriation, property, and intent to permanently deprive. Jamie's liability is assessed for criminal damage related to a glass roof he damaged, focusing on the elements of the Criminal Damage Act. Finally, the study evaluates Jamie's potential liability for manslaughter in connection with the manager's death, ultimately concluding that while he is liable for property damage, he is not liable for manslaughter. The analysis is based on the legal principles and definitions provided within the relevant statutes.

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.

Appropriates
(1) Any assumption by Sam of the rights of an owner is an appropriating, & this encompasses
any validation of a claim to it by maintaining or interacting with it as owner, whether he obtained
the commodity innocently or not.
(2) Where ownership or a rights or stake in property is or purported to be conveyed for
compensation to an individual acting appropriately, no subsequent acceptance by him of rights
that he understood he was obtaining shall amounts to theft of the asset because of a flaw in the
transferor's title. This essential element determines the whole situation so that it will helpful to
identify the appropriateness of the case which is related with their actions of Sam taken.
“Property”
(1)"Property" refers to money &all other physical &intellectual assets include objects in motion
&other intangible assets.
(2) Except in the correct instances, a person cannot steal l &or goods constituting part of land &
detached from it by him or on his orders:
(a)when he is a trustee or individual reflective, or is authorised by legal representative, or as a
company's liquidator, or is otherwise, to advertise or try to get rid of l&connectedness to the
next, &he allocates the l&or anything forming part of that by having dealt with it in
contravention of the trust placed in him (Green and Kugler, 2010).
(b )when he is not in title to the l&but also allocates that anywhere making it part of it by
detaching it or starting to cause it to be severed. Property is also another essential element of the
threat act which is mainly dedicated toward the is stealing and constitutional part of the
organisation and people.

“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”
(1) A person trying to appropriate estate sense of attachment another without intending to
permanently deprive another of it is to be regarded as having the authority of permanently
depriving the other of it if his primary intent is to treat the stuff for his own to dispose of
regardless of the other's privileges; &a borrowed money or borrowing of it may quantity to so
trying to treat it if, but only if, the borrowed money or borrowing is for a timeframe &in
compelled to act it comparable to a perpetual deprivation of each other's
(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection - (1) above, when a have someone in lawful or
unlawful sole control of another's real estate components with it under a circumstance of return
that he may not be able to fulfill, this amounts to going to treat the real estate as his own to try
&get rid of students irrespective of another's rights. On the basis of this essential element, it is
determining that intentions of the people are really matter which can drive the others feeling
which is exactly related with the same case.
On the basis of the effective applications related theft act, it is analysed that Sam is liable for
this situation because they came of energy drink without any pain and randomly he go away to
liable for the for theft in respect of the can of energy drink (Griew, 1974).
B. Jamie’s liability for the criminal damage in respect of the glass roof
This case study is mainly related with the theft and criminal damages. There are various types of
essential elements are involved which is related with the criminal damage because Jamie’s is
liable for the criminal damage in respect of the glass roof.
Criminal damage
An Act to update the legislation of England &Wales in relation to property destruction offenses,
&to abolish or modify certain legislation pertaining to such offences in relation to the United
Kingdom; &for related objects.

BE IT ENACTED, by although with the advice &agreement of the Lords Spiritual &Temporal,
&the Commons, in this same Parliament convened, &by the power of the same, that: —
1- Destroying or damaging property.
1) Jamie was the person who destroys or damages any property belonging to another without
legitimate justification, with the goal of destroying or injure such material, or with recklessness
about whether such estate will be damaged or injured, is guilty of the offence.
(2) A person who disrespects any estate, whether his or someone else's, without lawful excuse—
(a) intending to tear down or serious harm any property or being irresponsible about whether
any real estate would've been devastated or compromised; &(b) becoming irresponsible about
whether any estate would be devastated or compromised; and
(b) intending to jeopardize another's life by causing destruction or being irresponsible as to
whether someone else's life might be threatened as a result;
(3) Arson is prosecuted as an offense under section when the property is destroyed or damaged
by fire (Newman, 2007).
The main concern of this essential element is to focus on the destroying and also damaging
properties of the Jamie. With the help of this element, it is determine that a person who mainly
disrespect the people and also done anything deliberately can destroy the whole scenario.
2- Threats to destroy or damage property
Jamie who, without legitimate justification, says something offensive to the another, deliberately
trying for that some other to feel scared that it will be carried out,—
(a) To tear down or injury any proprietary right to that other or a third party;
(b) To decimate or harm any land that belongs to some other or a third man
(c) To dismantle or harm any proprietary right to some other or a third party;
(d) to decimate or serious harm any proprietary right to that

(b) To damage or harm his own properties in a manner that he knows would put the other
person's or a third person's life in jeopardy;
Shall be charged with a crime.
3- Possessing something with the aim to cause property harm or destruction
A person who possesses anything in his possession or under his control &intends to use it, or
cause or authorise another to use it, without valid excuse—
(a) to destroy or destroy any other property;
(b) to destroy or destroy his own &the person's real estate in a way that he knows is likely to put
another person's life in risk;
4- Offenses are punished
(1) Jamie convicted of combustion under section 1 or an offence under section. (whether or not
arson) is subject to life imprisonment if found guilty on accusation.
(2) Jamie found guilty of any other crime under this Act faces a maximum sentence of years of
imprisonment if convicted on indictment.
5- Without lawful excuse.
This statement refers to any infraction under section
(1) above, as well as any infraction under sections 2 or 3 above, unless it involves a threat even
by person charged to tear down or damage the equipment in a way that he knows is likely to
harm the existence of someone else, or an intent by the person charged for using, start causing, or
licence the use of something like this in his incarceration or under his direct authority to
dismantle or damage (Wasik, 1988).
On the basis of the practical and effective implications of this essential elements which is related
with the criminal damage, it is determined that Jamie’s liability for the criminal damage in
respect of the glass roof. Jamie's liable because he did so many things which provided directly

impact on the life of the manager so it can be said that for this situation Jamie's liable for the
glass roof.
C. Jamie’s liability for Manslaughter in respect of manager death
On the basis of above discussion which is related with the Sam's and Jamie's situation , it is
determine that both are liable for different difference situations such as sam is liable for the theft
arelated with the can energy drink. In case of Jamie was a younger person who wanted to visit
the contraction sites but he don't have any idea about that particular site. Journey took the pipe
and also tried to smash the panel of glass roof and he also smash with the each and every
window one by one after smash the 12 windows he got board and to cut decision to go home. He
doesn’t have any idea about the glass roof which hearted the manager badely. Police also
investigate each and every factors and it is determine that Jamie is not liable for the men's
laughter in respect to the manager death (Wilks, 1995).
On the basis of the situation it is determine that, Jamie's is only liable for the destroying
and also damaging the properties of the manager. The explanation about the essential elements
which is related with his drawing or damaging the property are given below -
Destroying or damaging property.
1)It is an offence to destroy or damage any l&that belongs elsewhere without valid justification,
with the intent to destroy or destroy such material, or with recklessness as whether such estate
would be harmed or damaged.
(2)A person who disrespects any real estate, whether his or someone else's, without lawful
excuse—
(a)intentionally destroying or damaging any property or being reckless about whether any
property would've been destroyed or compromised.
(b)intentionally destroying or damaging any property or being reckless as to whether any estate
would be damaged or compromised.
(b)intentionally endangering another's life by destruction or damage, or being careless as whether
someone else's life might be threatened as a result.

(3)An offense underneath this section involving the destruction or damage to properties by fire is
prosecuted as arson.

References
Bernstein, K.J., 2001. Net Zero: The Evisceration of the Sentencing Guidelines Under the No
Electronic Theft Act. New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement, 27, p.57.
Green, S.P. and Kugler, M.B., 2010. Community perceptions of theft seriousness: a challenge to
model penal code and English theft act consolidation. Journal of Empirical Legal
Studies, 7(3), pp.511-537.
Griew, E., 1974. The Theft Act 1968. Sweet & Maxwell.
Newman, C., 2007. Incorporating Customary International Law into Domestic Law: Criminal
Law Act 1967, S. 3; Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, S. 68 (2) R v Jones
and others [2006] UKHL 16,[2006] 2 All ER 741. The Journal of Criminal
Law, 71(1), pp.11-15.
Wasik, M., 1988. Criminal damage/criminal mischief. Anglo-American Law Review, 17(1),
pp.37-45.
Wilks, N.G., 1995. The Pet Theft Act: Congressional Intent Plowed Under by the United States
Department of Agriculture. Animal L., 1, p.109.