ASSIGNMENT LAW

STUDENT
ID:2427010
 ACTUS REUS MENSREA

Q1:The mens rea is the mental element of the crime i.e what the defendant is
intending or thinking or failing to think about when the crime is committed.

Q2:An omission can be sufficient to form the actus reus of a crime in the following situations
such as Duty Arising from a Special Relationship which means if a person fails to act when
they have a duty to do so due to a special relationship For example in R v Gibbins and
Proctor (1918). Another Situation can be Contractual Duty to act which means if someone is
under a contractual obligation to act and fails to fulfill it leading to harm for Instance RV
Pittwood

Q3: The law on the chain of causation and medical treatment seeks to ensure justice by
holding defendants accountable for the harm they cause, even when medical intervention
plays a role. Generally, poor medical care does not break the chain unless it is “palpably
wrong” and becomes the sole cause of harm, as seen in R v Jordan (1956). This ensures that
defendants cannot avoid liability over minor medical errors, as illustrated in R v Smith
(1959) and R v Cheshire (1991), where defendants were held responsible because their
actions remained substantial causes of death. However, the subjective nature of what
counts as “palpably wrong” can lead to inconsistencies, making similar cases feel unfair. For
instance, in R v Malcherek and Steel (1981), defendants were held liable even when life
support withdrawal contributed to death. While the law aims to balance fairness for
defendants with justice for victims, clearer and more consistent rules would improve its
application and ensure a greater sense of justice for all involved.
The law on oblique intention, clarified in R v Woollin (1998), allows a jury to find intention if
the defendant foresaw the consequence of their actions as a virtual certainty. While this
provides structure, its effectiveness is limited by ambiguity and reliance on jury discretion,
leading to inconsistent outcomes. The distinction between intention and recklessness
remains blurred, as seen in cases like R Matthews and Alleyne (2003), where foresight alone
was deemed insufficient for intention. To improve fairness and consistency, clearer
definitions or statutory clarification are needed.

The actus reus is the physical element of the crime i.e what the defendant has done or not done an actus reus can
be an act or a failure to act or maybe a state of affairs .

The ‘but for’ test in causation is used to determine whether the defendant’s actions were the direct cause of the
harm or result. It asks whether the harm would have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct. If the harm would
not have happened without the defendant’s actions, then the defendant can be said to have caused the result.

For example, if a person pushes another, and the pushed person falls and breaks their leg, the ‘but for’ test asks:
would the injury have occurred but for the push? If the answer is no, the defendant’s actions are considered the
cause of the injury. Two examples of events that can break the chain of causation Intervening Acts (Novus Actus
Interveniens): If a new, unforeseeable event occurs that is so independent and significant that it becomes the main
cause of harm, it can break the chain of causation. For example, if a victim is injured in a car crash but later dies
due to a completely unrelated and unforeseeable medical complication, the injury may no longer be seen as the
main cause of death.
Foresight of consequences refers to a defendant’s awareness or knowledge that their actions are likely to lead to a
particular outcome, even if that outcome was not their primary intention. In criminal law, it is often used in the
context of determining oblique intention or recklessness.

For example, in cases of oblique intention, if the defendant foresees that their actions will almost certainly cause a
particular harm (such as death or injury), this foresight can be used to infer that they intended the harm, even if it
was not their direct goal. In recklessness, it refers to the defendant recognizing that their actions carry a risk of
harm but proceeding anyway, without regard for the potential consequences. Thus, foresight of consequences
involves understanding the likely outcomes of one’s actions, even if they are not the primary aim.

In criminal law, a defendant is considered reckless when they consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that their actions will cause harm or result in a prohibited consequence. The key elements of recklessness are:
Awareness of Risk: The defendant must be aware that their conduct carries a risk of harm or illegal consequence.
Unjustifiable Disregard: The defendant must disregard that risk in a way that is unreasonable or unjustifiable under
the circumstances.

For example, if a person drives at high speed through a crowded area, they may be aware of the risk of hitting
someone, but choose to take that risk anyway, showing recklessness. The level of risk must be substantial and the
disregard for it unjustifiable for recklessness to apply.

Medical Treatment: If medical treatment is so negligent or “palpably wrong” that it becomes the primary cause of
harm or death, it can break the chain of causation. For instance, if a doctor administers the wrong treatment that
directly leads to the victim’s death, despite the original injury being serious, this may sever the causal link between
the defendant’s actions and the victim’s death.

Did Vlad cause Wayne’s death?

To determine whether Vlad caused Wayne’s death, we need to assess whether Vlad’s actions were a direct cause of
Wayne’s death, using the principles of causation, particularly the ‘but for’ test and the concept of intervening acts
(novus actus interveniens).

‘But for’ Test: Would Wayne have died but for Vlad’s actions?
Vlad accelerated his car towards Wayne, hitting him with the mirror, which caused Wayne to sustain broken fingers.
Had Vlad not accelerated towards Wayne, Wayne would not have been injured in the first place. So, Vlad’s actions
were the initial cause of the injury.

Intervening Acts (Novus Actus Interveniens): Did the disease that Wayne contracted at the hospital break the chain
of causation?

Wayne contracted a disease while at the hospital, which led to his death. The crucial question is whether this
disease was an unforeseeable and independent event that breaks the chain of causation.

If the disease was an ordinary risk of hospital treatment (such as an infection), the chain of causation may remain
intact, and Vlad could still be considered the cause of death.

However, if the disease was an extremely rare and unforeseeable event (e.g., a rare hospital-acquired infection),
there may be an argument that the disease broke the chain of causation.

The law of causation in criminal law seeks to establish a direct link between the defendant’s actions and the result
(in this case, Wayne’s death). The ‘but for’ test is effective in establishing a clear link between the defendant’s
conduct and the harm caused, as it determines whether the harm would have occurred without the defendant’s
actions. In this case, without Vlad’s actions, Wayne would not have been injured and subsequently died.

However, the concept of intervening acts complicates matters. The law distinguishes between independent
intervening acts (which break the chain of causation) and dependent intervening acts (which do not). Hospital-
acquired infections or medical treatment-related deaths often fall under the category of dependent intervening
acts, where the defendant may still be held responsible if the harm was a foreseeable result of their original
actions. This can lead to subjective interpretations and inconsistent outcomes, as courts may vary in their judgment
on whether an intervening act is sufficiently independent to sever the causal chain.

In this case, if the disease Wayne contracted was foreseeable or a regular risk associated with hospital treatment,
Vlad’s actions would still be the proximate cause of Wayne’s death, and he would be held responsible. However, if
the disease was rare and unforeseeable, the court might decide that the chain of causation was broken, and Vlad
would not be held liable.

In conclusion, Vlad likely caused Wayne’s death, depending on whether the disease Wayne contracted at the
hospital was an intervening act that was foreseeable or rare. The law of causation, particularly in cases involving
medical treatment and intervening acts, can be complex and open to interpretation, highlighting the challenges of
applying clear and consistent standards in all cases.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Q1

There are three types of Delegated legislation. Statutory instruments this refers to rules and regulations and orders
made by the government ministers under powers given by an act of parliament. Another type is by laws which
means laws made by local authorities or certain public bodies for example transport for London to local issues.
Orders in council is another type which means laws made by the queen and Privy Council often in emergencies or
to transfer responsibilities between government departments.

Q2

Two ways Parliament can control delegated legislation are

Affirmative Resolution Procedure – Certain statutory instruments require explicit approval from Parliament before
they can become law.

Negative Resolution Procedure – Delegated legislation can be annulled if either House of Parliament objects within a
specified period (usually 40 days).

Q3

Delegated legislation has several advantages that make it a practical tool for lawmaking. It saves Parliament
valuable time by allowing it to focus on bigger issues, while more detailed or technical matters are handled by
experts or local authorities. This approach brings flexibility, as specialists can create rules tailored to specific
industries or local needs. It’s also much quicker than passing a full Act of Parliament, which is especially important
in emergencies or when situations change rapidly. Another benefit is that delegated legislation can be updated or
amended more easily, helping laws stay relevant. By-laws, in particular, ensure that local communities can address
their own unique challenges effectively.

Q4

By-laws, a form of delegated legislation created by local authorities or public bodies, have both advantages and
disadvantages. They are tailored to address specific local issues, ensuring that solutions are practical and relevant
to the community’s needs. Additionally, they are made by those with local knowledge, which helps in effectively
tackling regional problems. However, by-laws can lead to inconsistencies across different areas, as rules may vary
from one region to another. They also receive less scrutiny compared to other forms of legislation, which can raise
concerns about accountability. Despite these drawbacks, by-laws remain a valuable tool for managing local affairs.
Q5

Orders in Council are made by the Privy Council, a formal body of advisors to the monarch. Members of the Privy
Council include senior politicians, such as current and former government ministers, members of the royal family,
and senior judges. The Prime Minister and other key government figures often play a significant role in its decisions.
This body allows for swift lawmaking, particularly in emergencies, and can enact Orders in Council without going
through the full parliamentary process.

Q6

Statutory instruments are made by government ministers and departments who are granted the power to do so
through an enabling Act of Parliament. The enabling Act outlines the framework and gives specific authority to
ministers to create detailed rules or regulations within its scope. This allows statutory instruments to address
technical or specialized areas of law without requiring a full Act of Parliament, ensuring flexibility and efficiency in
lawmaking.

Q7

Judges can control delegated legislation through judicial review, where they assess whether the legislation exceeds
the powers granted by the enabling Act (ultra vires). They can also declare delegated legislation invalid if it is found
to conflict with fundamental rights or principles, ensuring it complies with the law.

Q8

By-laws offer several benefits. Firstly, they allow local authorities to address specific issues within their
communities, ensuring laws are tailored to local needs and circumstances. This localized approach ensures that
problems unique to a region, such as traffic regulations or waste management, are dealt with effectively. Secondly,
by-laws are created by those with local knowledge, which helps ensure that the solutions are practical and
appropriate for the area. However, by-laws can lead to inconsistency between different regions, as each local
authority may implement its own set of rules, potentially causing confusion. Additionally, by-laws often receive less
scrutiny than national legislation, which can result in a lack of oversight and accountability. Despite these
drawbacks, by-laws remain a valuable tool for managing local affairs.

Q9

Delegated legislation is used for several key reasons. First, it allows Parliament to focus on broader, national issues
while delegating detailed, technical, or time-sensitive matters to other bodies, saving valuable parliamentary time.
Second, it enables the creation of laws by experts or specialists who have the relevant knowledge and experience,
ensuring that regulations are appropriate and effective. Third, delegated legislation provides flexibility and
efficiency, as it can be made more quickly than primary legislation, which is crucial in responding to emergencies or
rapidly changing situations. Fourth, it allows laws to be tailored to local needs, as seen in by-laws made by local
authorities to address specific regional issues. Finally, delegated legislation is easier to amend or repeal than
primary legislation, ensuring that laws can be updated more promptly as circumstances change. Despite some
concerns, such as reduced scrutiny and potential inconsistency, the use of delegated legislation is vital for
managing complex and evolving legal frameworks.
Q10

There are several controls in place to ensure delegated legislation is used appropriately and within the powers
granted by Parliament. Parliamentary controls include the affirmative and negative resolution procedures, where
some forms of delegated legislation must be explicitly approved or can be annulled by Parliament. Additionally,
parliamentary committees, such as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, review delegated legislation to
ensure it aligns with the intentions of the enabling Act. Judicial review allows courts to examine whether the
legislation exceeds its powers (ultra vires) or is unreasonable, applying tests like Wednesbury unreasonableness to
determine if the legislation is irrational. Procedurally, many enabling Acts require the body making delegated
legislation to consult relevant stakeholders, ensuring a broader perspective is considered. Furthermore, delegated
legislation must be published and made accessible, promoting transparency and accountability. These combined
controls help ensure that delegated legislation remains effective, lawful, and in line with democratic principles,
though concerns about lack of scrutiny persist.

Q11

Statutory Instruments (SIs), by-laws, and Orders in Council (OiC) all serve important purposes, but each comes with
its own set of benefits and drawbacks. SIs are particularly valued for their efficiency and flexibility, allowing detailed
regulations to be created quickly in areas that require expert knowledge or rapid responses, such as health and
safety or environmental regulations. However, the main criticism of SIs is that they often lack detailed
parliamentary scrutiny, which can lead to concerns about accountability, and in some cases, ministers might
overstep the powers granted to them by Parliament. By-laws, on the other hand, are created by local authorities to
address specific needs within communities, making them particularly effective in managing local issues like parking
regulations or noise control. While they offer tailored solutions, by-laws can cause confusion due to inconsistencies
across different regions, and they are sometimes created without enough public awareness or oversight. Orders in
Council are typically used in exceptional circumstances, such as national emergencies or constitutional changes,
where speed and discretion are necessary. They allow for swift action but can raise concerns about the lack of
democratic involvement, as they are made by the Privy Council, not elected representatives. This can concentrate
power in the hands of the government, reducing checks and balances. Ultimately, while delegated legislation is vital
for addressing a wide range of issues quickly and effectively, its potential drawbacks, including a lack of scrutiny
and possible overuse of power, underscore the need for careful oversight to ensure it serves the public interest and
respects democratic values.
 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Q1

The literal rule is a method of interpreting statutes where judges apply the plain, ordinary
meaning of the words used in the law, even if it leads to an undesirable or unjust result. It
prioritizes the exact wording of the statute over other factors like intent or purpose.

Q2

R v.Judge of the City of London Court (1892)

Whiteley v. Chappel (1868)

Q3

In Fisher v Bell (1961), the court applied the literal rule, interpreting the term “offer for sale”
strictly, which led to the defendant’s acquittal as displaying a knife in a shop window was
not considered a legal “offer.” If the mischief rule had been applied, the court would have
focused on the purpose of the Restricting the Sale of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which
aimed to reduce the availability of dangerous weapons. Under this rule, the court could have
interpreted the display of the knife as an attempt to encourage its sale, thus addressing the
mischief the law intended to prevent, potentially leading to a conviction.

Q4

The mischief rule is a principle of statutory interpretation where judges seek to understand
the problem or “mischief” that the legislation was intended to address, and interpret the law
in a way that effectively resolves that issue. This approach goes beyond the literal meaning
of the words and focuses on the purpose or intent of the law, allowing judges to adapt the
statute to modern circumstances or fill in gaps where the law might be unclear or outdated.

Advantages:

Promotes Justice: The mischief rule ensures that the law is applied in a way that addresses
the problem it was intended to solve, leading to fairer and more just outcomes. Judges can
interpret the law in a manner that prevents loopholes from being exploited and ensures that
the true intention behind a statute is achieved.

Flexibility: The rule allows for a more flexible interpretation of laws, especially when the
literal meaning is ambiguous or outdated. This is particularly useful when statutes are
drafted with language that might not account for modern circumstances or issues.

Filling Gaps in Legislation: The mischief rule helps to fill in gaps where the wording of a
statute may not cover all possible situations. This is especially important when a law is
vague or did not foresee certain developments, allowing the court to apply the law in a way
that resolves the issue effectively.

Aligns with Parliamentary Intent: The mischief rule seeks to stay true to the legislative intent
behind the statute, allowing the law to work as Parliament intended, even if the literal
interpretation of the statute might lead to an unjust or impractical result.
Disadvantages:

Judicial Discretion: One of the main criticisms of the mischief rule is that it gives judges
significant discretion to interpret statutes, which can lead to judicial activism. Judges may
impose their own views on the law, which can result in decisions that are seen as “making”
law rather than interpreting it.

Uncertainty: The flexibility inherent in the mischief rule can lead to uncertainty and
unpredictability in the law. Since judges have more leeway in interpreting the law, it can be
difficult for individuals or businesses to know how the law will be applied in specific
situations, leading to confusion and lack of legal clarity.

Potential for Inconsistency: Because judges are interpreting the purpose or “mischief”
behind a statute, there is room for disagreement about what the law was intended to
address. This can lead to inconsistent decisions and undermine the principle of certainty in
the legal system.

Risk of Overreach: The mischief rule may encourage judges to go beyond the literal wording
of a statute and impose their own interpretations of what the law should mean. This could
result in judicial overreach, where judges effectively create law, which can undermine the
principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

In conclusion, the mischief rule provides a more adaptable approach to interpreting statutes,
ensuring laws fulfill their intended purpose and remain relevant. However, its flexibility can
lead to judicial discretion, uncertainty, and potential overreach, making it a debated method
of statutory interpretation.
Q5

Advantage: The literal rule provides clarity and predictability in the law, as judges interpret
statutes based solely on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used. This ensures
that individuals and businesses can easily understand and follow the law, leading to greater
legal certainty.

Disadvantage: The literal rule can lead to unjust or absurd outcomes. Since it disregards the
context or intention behind the law, it may result in decisions that are rigid or inappropriate
for the circumstances, as it does not allow for flexibility or consideration of the law’s
purpose.

Q6

Advantage: The literal rule provides clarity and predictability in the law, as judges interpret
statutes based solely on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used. This ensures
that individuals and businesses can easily understand and follow the law, leading to greater
legal certainty.

Disadvantage: The literal rule can lead to unjust or absurd outcomes. Since it disregards the
context or intention behind the law, it may result in decisions that are rigid or inappropriate
for the circumstances, as it does not allow for flexibility or consideration of the law’s
purpose.

Q7

The mischief rule is a principle of statutory interpretation where judges focus on identifying
the “mischief” or problem that the legislation was intended to address and interpret the
statute in a way that remedies that issue, even if it means departing from the literal
meaning of the words. A key case where the mischief rule was applied is Smith v. Hughes
(1960), where the court interpreted the Street Offences Act 1959 to cover women soliciting
from balconies, even though the statute referred only to “in a street or public place,” as the
mischief the law aimed to address was the solicitation of prostitution in public.

Q8

The purposive approach is a method of statutory interpretation where judges interpret a

statute in a way that best fulfills its purpose or intent, rather than focusing strictly on the
literal meaning of the words. This approach considers the law’s overall objective and ensures
that the statute achieves the result Parliament intended. A case where the purposive
approach was used is Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Ltd (1999), where the
House of Lords interpreted the Rent Act 1977 to include same-sex partners as “family
members” for the purposes of tenancy rights, focusing on the statute’s purpose of providing
security of tenure to those in genuine family-like relationships, even though the wording of
the law did not explicitly cover same-sex couples.

Q9

Judges use the literal rule by interpreting the words of a statute according to their plain,
ordinary meaning, without considering the law’s purpose or potential consequences. This
approach relies on the idea that Parliament’s words should be followed exactly as they are
written. If the wording is clear and unambiguous, judges will apply the statute literally, even
if the result seems absurd or unjust. The literal rule emphasizes legal certainty and
predictability, as it avoids judicial discretion in favor of strictly adhering to the language of
the law. However, if the language is unclear, judges may face difficulties, but they are still
bound to follow the literal meaning unless it leads to an obviously unjust result.

Q10

Judges play a crucial role in statutory interpretation, as they are tasked with determining the
meaning of legislation when its wording is unclear, ambiguous, or open to multiple
interpretations. Their role is essential in ensuring that laws are applied correctly to individual
cases, and that the legislative intent is upheld.

Role in Applying Different Rules:

Judges use various interpretive methods to resolve ambiguities in statutes. These include
the literal rule, where they adhere to the plain meaning of the words, the golden rule, where
they modify the literal meaning to avoid absurd results, the mischief rule, where they focus
on the problem the statute aims to solve, and the purposive approach, which seeks to
understand the law’s broader intent. Each of these methods reflects a different level of
judicial discretion, with some more flexible than others.

Balancing Legislative Intent and Judicial Independence:

Judges must balance parliamentary sovereignty with the need to interpret laws in a way that
aligns with justice and the purpose behind legislation. While they are not supposed to create
laws, their interpretations can sometimes evolve or extend the application of existing laws,
especially in cases where the language of the statute is outdated or insufficient for new
circumstances. This gives judges a significant degree of power in shaping how laws are
applied, potentially affecting how legal precedents are established.

Challenges in Statutory Interpretation:

The role of judges in statutory interpretation is not without controversy. Critics argue that
judicial discretion can lead to judicial overreach, where judges may effectively “make law”
rather than simply interpreting it. This can undermine the democratic principle of
parliamentary sovereignty. However, supporters contend that judicial flexibility is necessary
to ensure the law remains fair and adaptable to changing societal values and situations.

In summary, judges play a vital role in statutory interpretation, guiding the law’s application
in ways that align with its purpose while balancing judicial independence and the intent of
Parliament. Their decisions can influence the development of the law, though they must
exercise caution to avoid overstepping their role.
 THEFT

Q1
The offence of theft is defined under the Theft Act 1968 as when a person
dishonestly takes or appropriates property belonging to another, with the intent
to permanently deprive the owner of it. The key elements are dishonesty,
appropriation of property, the property belonging to someone else, and the
intention to permanently deprive the owner of it.

Q2

The definition of dishonesty in theft law, as set out in the Theft Act 1968, is
subjective and allows the jury to decide based on societal standards, which can
lead to inconsistent outcomes. While case law (e.g., R v Ghosh (1982)) has
clarified dishonesty with a two-part test, the lack of a clear, statutory definition
causes uncertainty and potential injustice. The law’s flexibility can adapt to
different cases, but it also leaves room for judicial discretion, making it difficult to
ensure consistency and alignment with current societal views.

Q3
In the context of theft, the phrase “belonging to another” refers to property that
is owned or controlled by someone other than the person committing the theft.
Under Section 5 of the Theft Act 1968, property can belong to another if the
person has possession or control over it, or has a proprietary right or interest in
it. This means that the rightful owner of the property does not necessarily have to
be the person who holds it at the time of theft, as long as they have the right to
it. For example, if someone has borrowed an item and then steals it, it still
“belongs to another” because the owner retains their proprietary interest in it.

Q4

In the law of theft, the phrase “intention to permanently deprive” refers to the
defendant’s intention to permanently take away the property from its rightful
owner. This means the person stealing the property does not intend to return it or
give it back to the owner. It can also include situations where the thief treats the
property in a way that makes it unlikely the owner will get it back, such as selling
it, destroying it, or keeping it for a long period. The key point is that the
defendant’s intention must be to deprive the owner of their property for good,
not just temporarily.

Q5

In R v Barton and Booth (2020), the Supreme Court clarified the test for
dishonesty in theft cases. The test consists of two parts:

Objective Test: The first question is whether the defendant’s conduct was
dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.

Subjective Test: The second question is whether the defendant themselves

realized that their conduct was dishonest by those standards.

This two-part test replaced the earlier Ghosh test, which required the defendant
to know that their conduct was dishonest by the standards of reasonable people.
The Barton and Booth decision simplified the approach, focusing on whether the
defendant’s actions were dishonest by societal standards, and whether they were
aware of this dishonesty.

Q6

The actus reus of theft consists of appropriation (taking or using property without
the owner’s consent), the property being belonging to another (owned or
controlled by someone else), and the property being capable of being owned
(e.g., money, goods). The mens rea of theft involves dishonesty (acting without a
legal right or consent), and the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the
property, meaning the defendant intends to take the property in a way that the
owner will not be able to get it back. Both elements must be present for a theft
conviction.
Q7

In this scenario, Jake has committed the actus reus of theft by appropriating the
neighbour’s garden tools, as he assumed the rights of the owner by holding an
auction of the tools. The tools clearly belong to another (the neighbour), and they
are property capable of being owned. However, for the mens rea, Jake must have
been acting dishonestly and with the intention to permanently deprive the
neighbor of the tools. Since the tools were not taken away, and the neighbor
returned before any property was permanently deprived, it seems there was no
intention to permanently deprive the neighbour of the tools. As the tools were not
actually taken or kept, Jake likely did not fulfill the mens rea of theft, so the
offence of theft may not have been completed, although an attempt to commit
theft could potentially apply.

Q8

Yes, there has been an appropriation in this situation. Appropriation occurs when
Parvati takes the computer equipment and assumes the rights of the owner by
deciding to sell it, rather than fulfilling her agreed duty to deliver it to the
warehouse. Even though she initially had the legal right to take possession of the
equipment for the purpose of transportation, once she decides to sell it for cash
instead, she appropriates the property by treating it as her own, thereby
committing an act of appropriation.

Q9

In this situation, the exam papers and the photocopy can be considered property
for the purposes of theft, as they are intellectual property owned by the
educational institution. Della’s act of writing out the questions from the first
paper and making a photocopy of the second paper constitutes an appropriation
of that property, as she has treated the materials as her own. The exam papers
and photocopy are tangible property under the Theft Act 1968, and Della’s
actions are likely dishonest, given she had no permission to use or reproduce the
exam materials for personal gain. Thus, both the written questions and the
photocopy could be considered property for theft, and Della’s actions may
amount to theft if she intended to permanently deprive the institution of the
exclusive use of that property.

Q10

Conrad is likely liable for theft in both situations. In relation to the £100, the
actus reus of theft involves the appropriation of the property, which in this case is
the £100 from the cash register. Although Conrad intended to return the money
the next day, his act of taking it without permission is still an appropriation and is
dishonest under the mens rea of theft. Even though his intent was not to
permanently deprive the shop of the £100, the fact that he took it without
authorization constitutes theft as he had no legal right to take it. Regarding the
jeans, Conrad appropriated the jeans by swapping the labels, intending to pay a
lower price for the more expensive pair. This is also an act of dishonesty, as the
label swap was done to deceive the shop into charging him less than the true
value of the jeans, which he then intended to keep, thereby having the intention
to permanently deprive the shop of the jeans’ value. In both situations, Conrad’s
actions meet the legal requirements of both actus reus and mens rea of theft,
making him liable for committing theft under the Theft Act 1968.