Five Elements Of The Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968)

Financial abuse - is, for example, illegal or unauthorized use of a person’s property, money,

For Helen to satisfy the AR of murder (the unlawful killing) she must be the factual and legal cause of the death. We use the but for test, which shows if the consequence would or wouldn’t of happened ‘but for’ the Ds actions. As in the case of R v White, ‘but for’ him poisoning his mothers drink, she would of died anyway as she died of a heart attack, so he was not guilty of murder. ‘But for’ Helen throwing the firework in the room, Ian would not have died so she was the factual cause of death. Also, the legal causation is necessary, which is where the D must be the ‘operating and

In determining if there were reasonable grounds for defence, the jury may have regard to the deceased’s general reputation for violence. In Blyton’s case, his father was a ‘bad alcoholic with a temper’ and had a history of domestic abuse. Blyton’s defence argued that this history contributed to Blyton’s heightened awareness of danger and lead to an instinctive reaction by Blyton to stab his father when rushed.

v. Pickton would be R. v. Ranger and R. v. Suzack. R. v. Ranger is a case that demonstrates the theories of liability. In Ranger’s case, the accused was charged with the murder of his ex-girlfriend and sister, in which the accused claims that his cousin was the one who committed the crime. The Crown relied on two theories that: either the accused killed both the victims himself with the help from his cousin, or the accused’s cousin murdered the victims with the help of the accused. The trial judge also told the jury that they would still find the accused guilty even if they were not present at the event as an aider or abettor (para. 89). The accused was convicted of first degree murder. The different theories of liability in this case is not whether or not the accused was physically present at the scene, but the fact that the accused could have had the evil intention as an aider or abettor to the crime; those who are associated is guilty of the attempt to commit the crime. Similarly, in R. v. Suzack, the appellants were charged with the murder of an officer on duty. Both testified against each other, claiming that the other person was the one who pulled the fatal shot on the officer. Both appellants claimed that they had no actual intention of killing the officer; the Crown took the position of convicting both appellants with the same crime, as co-perpetrators (para. 1). In the case of Suzack, there was not a need to conclusively determine which

Financial abuse involves taking others property or money, theft and the exploitation of other people’s resources.

Attorney-General's Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1997] HL D stabbed his pregnant girlfriend V in the abdomen; she gave birth prematurely, and the baby B died some four months later as a result of its immaturity. This is transferred malice as D did not want to harm the baby but through his actions the baby came to harm

Koppersmith’s testimony of his actions portrayed a picture of unintentional events. The judge referred to the Woods case, “ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Similar to the defendant in Dunnage , Ronnie 'cannot escape liability if he causes injury by failing to exercise reasonable care', a judgement voiced by Vos LJ. For Ronnie, his violent actions are only bouts, therefore last a short while, thus he is able to exercise a reasonable standard of care for others. Even though his actions were not necessarily voluntary, he is still held under the objective standard, and so should be held accountable for stabbing the

While at the hospital, surgery is performed; however, the victim dies on the operating table. It is later discovered the hospital staff gave the patient medication during the procedure in which the victim was allergic to, but was not the cause of death. The cause of death was determined to be the severed artery and loss of blood. Even though the injuries were life threatening and the victim died anyway, the defendant could argue the hospital staff was the proximate cause of the victim’s death by giving them the medication they are allergic to. This should not release the defendant from a murder charge since the victim died from injuries they sustained from the stabbing. With the artery being severed, there was no hope for the victim. The medication given to the patient, while negligent in the dose administration, did not cause the death of the

In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.

The chain of causation may be broken if the victim’s acts are free, voluntary and informed. In our case, Larry was driving carelessly and was not wearing a helmet during the crash, believing that they are ‘only for girls’. As Larry’s intervention was voluntary, it could break the chain of causation and Willow may not be convicted for murder.

Larceny is defined as the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the takers own use. To bluntly say it, larceny is stealing from others. No matter what the motives or reasons behind stealing are, it is still wrong. I imagine there is a multitude of motives for someone to convince himself or herself that it is worth the risk to steal something. Some other people might also not have the conscience to feel wrong for stealing. A large part of this is because people do not understand who or what they are harming when they steal. It is very common to become self-indulged and only worry about your problems. Even after being caught someone might only feel

Secondly, no justice had been done to Bob Ewell and he got away with a false accusation and Bob basically for all practical purposes killed Tom Robinson. Overall what Arthur Radley had done was justifiable and far fairer than any court would be to Mr. Tom Robinson. (Fassett)

The organisation, Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd, claimed a dairy farm in New South Wales. The Husband, in his ability as executive of the organisation, exchanged title of the land to both himself and his wife as joint occupants in like manner. The spouse later moved his enthusiasm for the property to his wife for $1. An Application was brought by the organisation against the spouse and wife in the New South Wales Supreme Court looking for that the property be exchanged back to the organisation because of fraudulent activities of the spouse. The trial judge requested that the spouse pay remuneration to the organisation, however dismissed the procedures against the wife as she herself was not a knowing party to the fraud.

• How would your friend’s theft be dealt with under the law in this country?