Muhammed Awais
Distinction
In this task I will evaluate the different property offences, by evaluating I will say what the good things are and
what the sad things are.
Evaluation of Theft –
Theft is when someone takes something which doesn’t belong to them, they take it without the consent of the
owner allowing for them to take the item. That is what everyone will think about when they hear the word
‘Theft’. But there is a much wider definition which explains what theft is. There are several cases where theft
has been defined very differently. The meaning of theft is when someone appropriates property which doesn’t
belong to them. For example, there are two cases where theft has been defined and used differently and this is
firstly in the case of R V Morris where the defendant had walked into a supermarket and switched the labels on
some products which he wanted to pay a lower price for. The defendant was arrested before he had the chance to
pay for the goods at the lowered price. In this case the courts needed to decide if appropriation meant assuming
all the rights of the owner and if there was appropriation at the time. The court said that there was no need of
anyone to appropriate all the rights of the owner at the time. But he did assume some rights of the one as he
changed the labels which only the owner has the right to do. Therefore, he was guilty of theft. A second case
was Corcoran V Anderton, in this case the defendant had tried to steal a bag from an old lady. They did this by
one of the men pushing the lady and the other man was to grab the bag. Even though the lady was pushed by
the men she hanged on to the bag and the men ran away empty handed. In this case the court needed to decide if
there was any appropriation which is assuming rights of the owner. The court concluded that the two men had
the intention to permanently deprive the women of the bag. As touching the bag was enough for appropriation.
There are several of accounts on whether the following is theft, this is because the two men had run away empty
handed, but they still were found to be guilty. Most people wouldn’t agree that having such a wide definition of
theft is good. As some people who don’t commit the crime still get convicted on the intention of committing the
crime. Most people think of theft as taking something which didn’t belong to you without the permission of the
rightful owner. But in the cases mentioned above the defendants didn’t get away with the products they were
either caught before or they ran off without the items. So, the defendants didn’t achieve what they wanted to
achieve. The good thing about having such a wide definition of theft is that it makes people think twice before
they commit the crime. This is because people know that even if they don’t get away with the goods they could
still be found guilty of theft. Also, when someone changes the labels in a supermarket and gets caught before it
would be the same if they get caught after they leave the store and they had still assumed some of the rights of
the owner. There are also bad points about having such a wide definition of theft. The first problem is that the
meaning of property isn’t a full definition, so some people could get away with theft. For example, in the case of
Oxford V Moss where the teacher took an exam paper to help her students even though the paper was put back
the information on the paper was stolen. But this wasn’t counted as theft as information isn’t a tangible item.
This way the person has gotten away with the crime of theft. On the other hand, the courts say that the defendant
can also be found guilty of theft even though he has the consent of the owner to appropriate the property. For
example, in the case of R V Lawrence the taxi driver was met by an Italian person who couldn’t speak English,
as he couldn’t speak English he also didn’t understand the currency. Therefore, he only showed the taxi driver
the paper which had the address on it. Once they arrived the man handed the taxi driver less money and then the
taxi driver told him that it was too less, and the taxi driver took more money out of the purse. The driver was
found guilty of appropriation as he had taken more money than he had needed to take. The good things about the
decision of this case was that the taxi driver had taken more money than he needed to take so he had committed
theft. Even though he could take the money out of the purse he still took more money without the consent of the
owner. Therefore, the more money which he took was accounted for as appropriation. The bad points about the
decision of the case is that the Italian had allowed for the taxi driver to take his money and he needed to have
some understanding. Therefore, this cannot be classed as appropriation. If the taxi driver took the purse without
the permission, then this would have been appropriation. Secondly the man in the taxi had agreed to the fare
which the taxi driver had set for him. The fare was seven pounds and the Italian had agreed to the fare, if he
didn’t agree he could’ve asked the driver about the money then and there but he agreed with the driver.
Distinction
In this task I will evaluate the different property offences, by evaluating I will say what the good things are and
what the sad things are.
Evaluation of Theft –
Theft is when someone takes something which doesn’t belong to them, they take it without the consent of the
owner allowing for them to take the item. That is what everyone will think about when they hear the word
‘Theft’. But there is a much wider definition which explains what theft is. There are several cases where theft
has been defined very differently. The meaning of theft is when someone appropriates property which doesn’t
belong to them. For example, there are two cases where theft has been defined and used differently and this is
firstly in the case of R V Morris where the defendant had walked into a supermarket and switched the labels on
some products which he wanted to pay a lower price for. The defendant was arrested before he had the chance to
pay for the goods at the lowered price. In this case the courts needed to decide if appropriation meant assuming
all the rights of the owner and if there was appropriation at the time. The court said that there was no need of
anyone to appropriate all the rights of the owner at the time. But he did assume some rights of the one as he
changed the labels which only the owner has the right to do. Therefore, he was guilty of theft. A second case
was Corcoran V Anderton, in this case the defendant had tried to steal a bag from an old lady. They did this by
one of the men pushing the lady and the other man was to grab the bag. Even though the lady was pushed by
the men she hanged on to the bag and the men ran away empty handed. In this case the court needed to decide if
there was any appropriation which is assuming rights of the owner. The court concluded that the two men had
the intention to permanently deprive the women of the bag. As touching the bag was enough for appropriation.
There are several of accounts on whether the following is theft, this is because the two men had run away empty
handed, but they still were found to be guilty. Most people wouldn’t agree that having such a wide definition of
theft is good. As some people who don’t commit the crime still get convicted on the intention of committing the
crime. Most people think of theft as taking something which didn’t belong to you without the permission of the
rightful owner. But in the cases mentioned above the defendants didn’t get away with the products they were
either caught before or they ran off without the items. So, the defendants didn’t achieve what they wanted to
achieve. The good thing about having such a wide definition of theft is that it makes people think twice before
they commit the crime. This is because people know that even if they don’t get away with the goods they could
still be found guilty of theft. Also, when someone changes the labels in a supermarket and gets caught before it
would be the same if they get caught after they leave the store and they had still assumed some of the rights of
the owner. There are also bad points about having such a wide definition of theft. The first problem is that the
meaning of property isn’t a full definition, so some people could get away with theft. For example, in the case of
Oxford V Moss where the teacher took an exam paper to help her students even though the paper was put back
the information on the paper was stolen. But this wasn’t counted as theft as information isn’t a tangible item.
This way the person has gotten away with the crime of theft. On the other hand, the courts say that the defendant
can also be found guilty of theft even though he has the consent of the owner to appropriate the property. For
example, in the case of R V Lawrence the taxi driver was met by an Italian person who couldn’t speak English,
as he couldn’t speak English he also didn’t understand the currency. Therefore, he only showed the taxi driver
the paper which had the address on it. Once they arrived the man handed the taxi driver less money and then the
taxi driver told him that it was too less, and the taxi driver took more money out of the purse. The driver was
found guilty of appropriation as he had taken more money than he had needed to take. The good things about the
decision of this case was that the taxi driver had taken more money than he needed to take so he had committed
theft. Even though he could take the money out of the purse he still took more money without the consent of the
owner. Therefore, the more money which he took was accounted for as appropriation. The bad points about the
decision of the case is that the Italian had allowed for the taxi driver to take his money and he needed to have
some understanding. Therefore, this cannot be classed as appropriation. If the taxi driver took the purse without
the permission, then this would have been appropriation. Secondly the man in the taxi had agreed to the fare
which the taxi driver had set for him. The fare was seven pounds and the Italian had agreed to the fare, if he
didn’t agree he could’ve asked the driver about the money then and there but he agreed with the driver.
