January 2009 Law Ocr A2 Scenario Question

In the situation the following real estate offences possess arisen, included in this are theft and burglary. These offences come from the Theft Take action 1968. In both of the offences the burden of proof is around the prosecution and the standard of proof can be beyond affordable doubt. Fraud carries a maximum sentence of seven years and for theft it is a maximum of fourteen years. Susan may possibly have committed three offences of thievery and possible a burglary. Theft can be defined in section one of the Theft Work 1968, plus the definition of fraud is, ‘Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to an additional with the intention to permanently deprive the other than it. ' For Susan to acquire committed a theft in that case she need to have all of the elements. Firstly it would have to be proved that your woman did the theft ‘dishonestly' under section 2(1)(a), if Susan a new genuine right to deny the owner of the property, in this case Leslie did not have legal right to adopt the parfum, s. 2(1)(b) if Susan believed that the person would have consented to her taking the parfum, in this case this is certainly unlikely, t. 2(1)(c), in the event Susan was unable to find the owner through taking affordable steps, in cases like this the property has not been lost therefore this does not apply. As none of these apply, the Ghosh test is usually applied the first test is, was what Leslie had completed dishonest according to the ordinary criteria of reasonable and honest people? Regarding Susan this may not have recently been the case since many people will pay. Secondly, did Leslie realise that what he was doing was dishonest simply by those requirements? In this case since Susan was hiding the perfume, consequently Susan got taken the perfume dishonestly and has the first element of theft. Secondly the prosecution would have to provide evidence that Susan appropriated it. The meaning of appropriation is described in section 3, with the Theft Take action, it is understood to be ‘any assumption by a person of the legal rights of an owner', this does not show that all the owners' rights needs to be...