Offences Against Property Revision Docs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Writing Guide for APPLICATION Questions Theft contrary to s1 Theft Act 1968 (look for stealing) Robbery contrary to s8 Theft Act Burglary contrary to s9 Theft Act Making off Without Payment 1968 (stealing + force) 1968 (look for buildings) contrary to s3 Theft Act 1978 Dishonest 1. Not dishonest if a) thought had legal Completed Theft Enter right to property, believed would have D has to make off There must be a completed theft i.e. the D must have substantially entered i.e. had consent, took reasonable steps to (leave) flowchart to the left must be satisfied. been in enough to steal find owner. (ONLY MENTION IF Without Paying PRESENT) Know that payment was 2. If none apply, Ghosh Test applied: Use force or fear of force to steal Building Part of Building required would jury believe D realised D acting Did they go into a building Did they go into an area Intend to avoid dishonesty according to an ordinary How have they used force or caused a fear (B&S said outdoor freezer not permitted payment person? of force? In Dawson a nudge was enough. was building) (Walkington went behind Be dishonest counter) Brook and Brooks; D refused to pay for taxi Appropriate Timing ride, driver took them As a Trespasser to police station, ran Did they act if they were the owner? How? When was the force used? To be Why were they a trespasser? Did they away; guilty. (taking, eating, breaking etc) Morris robbery it must be used either JUST have permission? switched price labels. BEFORE or DURING the theft. If the Theft and Violence are separate Have they entered and then it is just a THEFT and a separate THEN once inside Property Non-Fatal Offence. Have they entered with decided to steal or Was there a continuing act i.e. theft intent to commit theft, How was it property? (Information not commit GBH? How do continuing during force then its GBH, damage? How do property – Oxford v Moss) (electricity, you know? Must show at robbery – Hale – one robber upstairs you KNOW they were wild animals, land, corpses not property) least an ATTEMPT to stealing whilst other tied V up. going in to do this? steal/GBH. Intention to Permanently Deprive If they have all aspects can be found guilty If yes, guilty of s9(1)(a) If yes, guilty of How do you know they weren’t going to and fined or imprisoned. Burglary s9(1)(b) Burglary return? MUST show they were not going to OR show that they used the value of item e.g. ticket. If taking vehicle without consent (TWOC) – no AGGRAVATED BURGLARY – S10 THEFT intent to perm. deprive as ACT – IF TAKE A WEAPON If they have all aspects can be found guilty joyriding. Separate and fined or imprisoned. offence of TWOC .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Imagereal Capture
Some Aspects of Theft of Computer Software by M. Dunning I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to test the capability of New Zealand law to adequately deal with the impact that computers have on current notions of crimes relating to property. Has the criminal law kept pace with technology and continued to protect property interests or is our law flexible enough to be applied to new situations anyway? The increase of the moneyless society may mean a decrease in money motivated crimes of violence such as robbery, and an increase in white collar crime. Every aspect of life is being computerised-even our per sonality is on character files, with the attendant )ossibility of criminal breach of privacy. The problems confronted in this area are mostly definitional. While it may be easy to recognise morally opprobrious conduct, the object of such conduct may not be so easily categorised as criminal. A factor of this is a general lack of understanding of the computer process, so this would seem an appropriate place to begin the inquiry. II. THE COMPUTER Whiteside I identifies five key elements in a computer system. (1) Translation of data into a form readable by the computer, called input; and subject to manipulation by the introduction of false data. Remote terminals can be situated anywhere outside the cen tral processing unit (CPU), connected by (usually) telephone wires over which data may be transmitted, e.g. New Zealand banks on line to Databank. Outside users are given a site code number (identifying them) and an access code number (enabling entry to the CPU) which "plug" their remote terminal in.
[Show full text]
Trade Secrets, Confidential Information, and the Criminal Law John
Trade Secrets, Confidential Information, and the Criminal Law John T. Cross* The author examines the extent to which prop- L'auteur 6value le potentiel qu'a le droit crimi- erty offences in the criminal law can be used to nel de pr6venir l'appropriation malhonnete de police the misappropriation of trade secrets l'information confidentielle et des secrets and confidential information. After assessing commerciaux en ]a qualifiant d'atteinte au the long-standing debate on whether informa- droit de proprit6. L'auteur expose le long tion can be classified as property, he argues drbat sur la question a savoir si l'information that answering the question one way or the peut etre l'objet d'un droit de proprirtd; il con- other involves circular reasoning. When clut que dans un cas comme dans l'autre la judges label information "property," it is to raponse implique un raisonnement circulaire. enable them to grant the desired remedies. L'attribution du terme <<proprirt6 >>par les Courts should instead ask more directly juges depend du rsultat qu'ils veulent obtenir. whether certain information should be pro- Les tribunaux devraient plutrt centrer leur rai- tected under the circumstances. It follows that sonnement sur l'importance de prot~ger ou precedents holding that certain information is non l'information en question dans les circons- property in one area of the law should not be tances, sans se sentir lids par la jurisprudence authoritative in others. The article then ant~rieure qui aurait caractdris6 autrement ce explores efforts made in Great Britain, Canada meme type d'information dans un autre con- and the United States to apply criminal prop- texte juridique.
[Show full text]
Chapter 8 Criminal Conduct Offences
Chapter 8 Criminal conduct offences Page Index 1-8-1 Introduction 1-8-2 Chapter structure 1-8-2 Transitional guidance 1-8-2 Criminal conduct - section 42 – Armed Forces Act 2006 1-8-5 Violence offences 1-8-6 Common assault and battery - section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 1-8-6 Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - section 47 Offences against the Persons Act 1861 1-8-11 Possession in public place of offensive weapon - section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 1-8-15 Possession in public place of point or blade - section 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 1-8-17 Dishonesty offences 1-8-20 Theft - section 1 Theft Act 1968 1-8-20 Taking a motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority - section 12 Theft Act 1968 1-8-25 Making off without payment - section 3 Theft Act 1978 1-8-29 Abstraction of electricity - section 13 Theft Act 1968 1-8-31 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services – section 125 Communications Act 2003 1-8-32 Possession or supply of apparatus which may be used for obtaining an electronic communications service - section 126 Communications Act 2003 1-8-34 Fraud - section 1 Fraud Act 2006 1-8-37 Dishonestly obtaining services - section 11 Fraud Act 2006 1-8-41 Miscellaneous offences 1-8-44 Unlawful possession of a controlled drug - section 5 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 1-8-44 Criminal damage - section 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971 1-8-47 Interference with vehicles - section 9 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1-8-51 Road traffic offences 1-8-53 Careless and inconsiderate driving - section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988 1-8-53 Driving
[Show full text]
Itu Toolkit for Cybercrime Legislation
International Telecommunication Union Cybercrime Legislation Resources ITU TOOLKIT FOR CYBERCRIME LEGISLATION Developed through the American Bar Association’s Privacy & Computer Crime Committee Section of Science & Technology Law With Global Participation ICT Applications and Cybersecurity Division Policies and Strategies Department ITU Telecommunication Development Sector Draft Rev. February 2010 For further information, please contact the ITU-D ICT Applications and Cybersecurity Division at [email protected] Acknowledgements We are pleased to share with you a revised version of the ITU Toolkit for Cybercrime Legislation. This version reflects the feedback received since the launch of the Toolkit in May 2009. If you still have input and feedback on the Toolkit, please do not hesitate to share this with us in the BDT’s ICT Applications and Cybersecurity Division at: [email protected]. (The deadline for input on this version of the document is 31 July 2010.) This report was commissioned by the ITU Development Sector’s ICT Applications and Cybersecurity Division. The ITU Toolkit for Cybercrime Legislation was developed by the American Bar Association’s Privacy & Computer Crime Committee, with Jody R. Westby as the Project Chair & Editor. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from the ITU and the American Bar Association. Denominations and classifications employed in this publication do not imply any opinion concerning the legal or other status of any territory or any endorsement or acceptance of any boundary. Where the designation "country" appears in this publication, it covers countries and territories. The ITU Toolkit for Cybercrime Legislation is available online at: www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/legislation.html This document has been issued without formal editing.
[Show full text]
DIXON V R – PROPERTY in DIGITAL INFORMATION?
ANUSHA WIJEWICKRAMA DIXON v R – PROPERTY IN DIGITAL INFORMATION? Submitted for the LLB (Honours) Degree Faculty of Law Victoria University of Wellington 2016 2 In 2015, New Zealand’s Supreme Court ruled in Dixon v R that digital files are property for the limited purposes of a computer misuse provision – s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court said it was distinguishing digital files from pure information, thus it was not challenging the long-standing legal position that information cannot be property. This paper analyses the Court’s purposive, conceptual and factual reasoning, ultimately concluding that a distinction between digital files and information is difficult to justify. It argues that the Court’s decision therefore actually erodes the traditional legal position. It concludes that Parliament, which can more fully explore policy considerations, might be better placed to determine whether digital files should be property. Potential ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision are also briefly outlined. Key words: property; digital files; information; Crimes Act 1961 s 249(1)(a); computer misuse I Introduction New Zealand's Supreme Court ruled in Dixon v R that digital files are not simply information, but are “property” for the purposes of s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.1 In doing so the Court expressly stated that it was not reconsidering the orthodox legal position that there is no property in pure information.2 Instead it used a purposive approach to determine Parliament's intent regarding computer misuse, and deemed digital files to be property for the limited purpose of s 249(1)(a).
[Show full text]
Criminal Law Review
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Salford Institutional Repository Page1 Criminal Law Review 2008 The Computer Misuse Act 1990: lessons from its past and predictions for its future Neil MacEwan Subject: Criminal law. Other related subjects: Information technology Keywords: Computer crime; Computer security Legislation: Computer Misuse Act 1990 s.1 , s.3 Police and Justice Act 2006 s.35 , s.36 *Crim. L.R. 955 Summary: The age of the internet has thrown down some real challenges to the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Recently, the Government made changes to this piece of legislation, in an attempt to meet two of those challenges--the proliferation of “ Denial of Service” (DoS) attacks, and the creation and dissemination of “ Hackers' tools” --and to fulfil international commitments on cybercrime. Yet some of these new measures invite criticisms of policy, form and content, and bring doubts about how easy to interpret, and how enforceable, they will be. Introduction Finally, after three aborted attempts to make changes to it within the last five years,1 the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) 1990 has been amended; specifically, both added to and altered.2 The offence of unauthorised access to computer material, 3 formerly a summary offence, has now become an offence triable either way, and the offence of unauthorised modification of computer material 4 has been replaced by the offence of unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or recklessness as to impairing, the operation of a computer etc. The time is right for a close re-examination of this piece of legislation.
[Show full text]
Annual Report 1988-89
CENTRE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES FIRST ANNUAL REPORT 1988-89 Table of Contents Introduction. The Work of the Centre. A Research projects. B Postgraduate study. C Relevant papers and publications by members of the Centre during 1988/9. D Seminars, Conferences and Continuing Education. Appendices Appendix 1 - Constitution of The Centre. Appendix 2 - Membership of The Centre. Appendix 3 - Centre Papers. • Submissions to the Law Commission Law Commission Working Paper No. 103 - Binding Over • Law Commission Working Paper No. 110 - Computer Misuse INTRODUCTION The Centre for Criminal Justice Studies was provisionally established in 1987 and was formally approved by the University in March 1988. Its object, as set out in its Constitution (see Appendix 1), is the pursuit of research and study into all aspects of criminal justice systems. This remit, as undertaken by the Executive Committee (see Appendix 2), has in practice included the encouragement of postgraduate students and research projects, and the arrangement of seminars and conferences. The Centre's 1 members comprise both lawyers and non-lawyers, and its work is generously assisted by an Advisory Committee, which consists of academics and practitioners in relevant fields of experience (Appendix 2). Professor Clive Walker Director Centre for Criminal Justice Studies University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT o Tel: +0044 (0)113 233 5033 o Fax: +0044 (0)113 233 5056 o email: [email protected] 10th July 1989 THE WORK OF THE CENTRE A Research projects Two research projects are currently in hand. (a) Reporting of Crown Court proceedings and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This project is funded by the Leverhulme Trust and is directed by Dr.
[Show full text]
University of Huddersfield Repository
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Huddersfield Repository University of Huddersfield Repository Drake, P J Is the requirement of dishonesty always the best policy to estabish liability against those who assist in a breach of trust? Original Citation Drake, P J (2011) Is the requirement of dishonesty always the best policy to estabish liability against those who assist in a breach of trust? Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/11652/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ IS THE REQUIREMENT OF DISHONESTY ALWAYS THE BEST POLICY TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY AGAINST THOSE WHO ASSIST IN A BREACH OF TRUST? Philip J Drake A dissertation submitted for the award of the degree of Master of Laws (LLM) The University of Huddersfield May 2011 .
[Show full text]
The Practitioner's Guide to Global Investigations
GIR Volume I: Global Investigations in the United Kingdom and the United States Kingdom and the United in the United Investigations I: Global Volume Investigations Global Guide to Practitioner’s The Global Investigations Review The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations Volume I: Global Investigations in the United Kingdom and the United States Third Edition Editors Judith Seddon, Eleanor Davison, Christopher J Morvillo, Michael Bowes QC, Luke Tolaini, Ama A Adams, Tara McGrath Third Edition 2019 2019 © Law Business Research The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations Third Edition Editors: Judith Seddon Eleanor Davison Christopher J Morvillo Michael Bowes QC Luke Tolaini Ama A Adams Tara McGrath © Law Business Research Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd www.globalinvestigationsreview.com No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of November 2018, be advised that this is a developing area. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to: [email protected]. Enquiries concerning editorial content
[Show full text]
Is the Requirement of Dishonesty Always the Best Policy to Estabish Liability Against Those Who Assist in a Breach of Trust?
University of Huddersfield Repository Drake, P J Is the requirement of dishonesty always the best policy to estabish liability against those who assist in a breach of trust? Original Citation Drake, P J (2011) Is the requirement of dishonesty always the best policy to estabish liability against those who assist in a breach of trust? Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/11652/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ IS THE REQUIREMENT OF DISHONESTY ALWAYS THE BEST POLICY TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY AGAINST THOSE WHO ASSIST IN A BREACH OF TRUST? Philip J Drake A dissertation submitted for the award of the degree of Master of Laws (LLM) The University of Huddersfield May 2011 .
[Show full text]
Fraud in England and Wales
Fraud in England and Wales AN INTRODUCTION TO UK LEGISLATION | JULY 2020 | SECOND EDITION The way in which criminal fraud is defined, investigated and prosecuted differs across the UK. This guide explains how fraud is usually dealt with under the criminal law in England and Wales. WHAT IS FRAUD? • When a person has in their • the common law offence of possession or under their control, any conspiracy to defraud; and Fraud can be broadly defined as the article for use in the course of, or in deliberate use of deception or dishonesty • offences under the Bribery Act 2010; connection with, any fraud (s6). to disadvantage or cause loss (usually Computer Misuse Act 1990; Forgery financial) to another person or party. • When a person makes, adapts, and Counterfeiting Act 1981; Identity Definitions of fraud vary from country to supplies or offers to supply any Documents Act 2010; Proceeds of country and between legal systems. article knowing that it is designed or Crime Act 2002; or the Financial In England and Wales fraud can be dealt adapted for use in fraud, or intended Services and Markets Acts 2000 with through the criminal justice system, to be used to commit fraud (s7). and 2012. the civil justice system, or both. This • When a person knowingly guide explains the criminal process only. participates in a business which CIVIL FRAUD is carried on with the intention of OVERVIEW OF THE LAW defrauding creditors or for any other Conduct which may constitute a In England and Wales, criminal fraud is fraudulent purpose (s9). criminal fraud can also result in civil mainly dealt with in the Fraud Act 2006 Offences under ss2, 3 and 4 require liability.
[Show full text]
Fraud Act 2006 (C
10/23/2014 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" Fraud Act 2006 2006 CHAPTER 35 An Act to make provision for, and in connection with, criminal liability for fraud and obtaining services dishonestly. [8th November 2006] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Fraud 1 Fraud (1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence). (2) The sections are— (a) section 2 (fraud by false representation), (b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and (c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position). (3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both). (4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months. 2 Fraud by false representation (1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
[Show full text]