VU21641 Advanced Criminal Law: Analyzing Theft, Robbery and Liability

This case study provides an analysis of several key concepts in criminal law, including larceny at common law and its evolution into theft under the Crimes Act, differentiating 'appropriate taking' from theft, and explaining the 'intention to permanently deprive' someone of property. It further explores the concept of 'obtaining property by deception' versus 'obtaining financial advantage by deception,' outlines the elements of stalking as established in R v Orgill, and distinguishes between robbery and armed robbery. Finally, it delves into the nature of strict liability offences, referencing the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact as highlighted in Proudman v Dayman, and offers an opinion on why the law designates certain offences as strict liability without requiring proof of mens rea. The document references several legal cases and statutes to support its analysis.

I QUESTION 7
A. Larceny at Common Law and Legislation
Larceny at common law is theft or stealing. It is the attempt by a person to permanently deprive
another of a possession that is rightfully theirs. Stealing, as defined by the VIC law, encompasses
all offences provided for under Division 2 of Part 1 of the Crimes Act 1958.1 There are three
elements that need to be proven by a complainant for one to be found guilty. First is that the item
in question must be someone else’s possession other than the defendant.2 Secondly, the taking
away must be physical. Thirdly, the taking away must have been done without the owner’s
consent. Considering the nature of the offence and the worth of item or possession in question, a
larceny case can be subjected to summary judgment as an indictable offence.
B. Appropriate Taking
Appropriate taking as it applies to the concept of theft is assuming the rights to own a property of
another person with his or her consent. As opposed to appropriation in theft, the legal owner of
the property transfers his or her rights in the property to another person. The consent is proof of
appropriate taking. Assuming legal rights on a property where permission has been granted or
where it has been through an honest acquisition, does not amount to theft and is thus not
punishable as a crime.
C. Intention to Permanently Deprive
Intention to permanently deprive as defined in the Crimes Act means having a convinced mental
capacity to undertake the act. The state of the mind is malicious.3 The accused party in a theft
case has to be seen as treating the property which does not belong to him or her as their own
regardless of the fact that the owner bears the rights. It encompasses situations where the accused
party has an intention of returning the property to its owner for instance where one steals a
voucher from a store and uses it to purchase items from the store. It also includes borrowing and
as such, is considered to be equivalent to outright thinking.
1 Gotocourt.com.au. Stealing Offences in Victoria. (n.d.).
<https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/stealing/>
2 David, Ormerod. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. (Oxford University Press Paperback,
2005).
3 Molan, Mike. Modern criminal law. (Routledge, 2013).

II. QUESTION 8
A. Concept of “obtaining property by deception” and “obtaining financial advantage by
deception”
A person is deemed to have obtained property by deception if he/she tells lies in order to gain
possession of another person’s property.4 The victim in this case surrenders the possession of
his/her property in the belief that the offender is telling the truth. The offence of obtaining
financial advantage bears a lot of similarity with the aforementioned offence. In this case, the
offender dishonestly tell lies to his/her victim to give him or her financial advantage that the
victim has no entitlement to provide. The offender may obtain such financial advantage by credit
or money or loan. In both offences the offender is of the knowledge that he/she is dishonestly
telling a lie.5
B. Elements of stalking
As showcased in R v Orgill [2007] VSCA 236, stalking is dispelled as unwanted or repetitive
surveillance by a person or group towards another individual.6 There is an interrelation between
stalking and harassment as well as intimidation. The court dictates that any unwanted contact
between individuals that directly or indirectly pose a threat to the victim can be considered as
stalking. If any of the contact has the ability to impact the victim’s life, the offence becomes
punishable before a court of law.
C. Difference between robbery and armed robbery
A person is deemed to have committed ordinary robbery if they use violence or threaten to use
violence in order to rip someone off the ownership of their property. If at all a weapon is used to
execute a robbery it is therefore elevated to an armed robbery. Armed robberies are severely
punished compared to ordinary robbery because in addition to the application of a weapon, there
is also a victim’s crime. Armed robbers confront their victims and take their property using
aggressive force.
QUESTION 9
A. Strict liability offence
A strict liability offence is a liability in which mens rea (‘’guilty mind’’) requires no proof in
relation to any elements constituting the actus reus (act of guilt) although intent, recklessness or
knowledge are required in relation to other elements that comprise the offence.7 The liability is
termed as strict because conviction will be meted on the accused despite genuine proof of
4 Lanham, David. Wood, David. Bartal Brownwyn and Evans, Rob. Criminal Laws in Australia. (Federation Press,
2006).
5 Porcaro v The Queen [2015] VSCA 244
6 R v Orgill [2007] VSCA 236
7 Kirchengast, T and Finlay, L. Criminal Law in Australia. (Lexis Nexis, 2014).

ignorance of any factors that made their actions or negligence criminal. The accused may not be
blameworthy in any way that is, there is no single criminal negligence, the least blameworthy
grade of mens rea.
B. Defence or principle in the case of Proudman v Dayman
The case of Proudman v Dayman is famous due to the defence of honest and reasonable mistake
of fact. This defence applies to offences which are deemed as ‘Strict Liability’. For example,
traffic offences are considered as strict liability offences. This entails; Drunk-driving, over
speeding or driving whilst disqualified. In the prosecution of such offences, the prosecutor does
not have to prove any mental incapacitation; proof of the act is enough to constitute a crime.
However though, there is a defence of honestly being mistaken as to particular facts in existence
but had reasonable belief about the said facts had they existed, the conduct would not have been
termed crime.
C. Why the law makes some offences “strict liability” without proving “mens rea”
The criminal liability dictates that there be a proof of mens rea and actus reus before the
conviction of an individual. If the prosecution deems it unnecessary to prove mens rea in regard
to actus reus elements, the offence is expressly disregarded and described as a strict liability.
Strict liability offences require no proof of mens rea for some elements of the actus reus. The
prosecution bears the burden of proving the causation of the actus reus and the strict liability
offence.
Bibliography
David, Ormerod. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. (Oxford University
Press Paperback, 2005).

Kirchengast, T and Finlay, L. Criminal Law in Australia. (Lexis Nexis, 2014).
Lanham, David. Wood, David. Bartal Brownwyn and Evans, Rob. Criminal Laws in Australia.
(Federation Press, 2006).
Molan, Mike. Modern criminal law. (Routledge, 2013).
Gotocourt.com.au. Stealing Offences in Victoria. (n.d.).
<https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/stealing/>
Porcaro v The Queen [2015] VSCA 244
R v Orgill [2007] VSCA 236