Law – Morris Case Study
In continuing the search reoccurred Mark took John & Andrew to a room to check the items that they had purchased from Tests store. While he was checking he found a Puma shirt with wrong price tag.
Mr.. Matt the manager has asked u to write a detail report on John & Andrews criminal offences. ( mm ) ( Refer to Morris case ) Answer : John and Andrew will be charged under Theft Act 1968. Whereas John will be charged under ass of the Theft Act for swapping of label where he had change the price tag from 50$ to ASS and also SSL(l) of the Theft Act 1968.
However, John and Andrew will be charged under Theft Act SSL(l ) for stealing of sun glasses.
John and Andrew will be charged for theft of sun glasses under SSL(l) of the Theft Act 1968. A person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the Intention of permanently depriving other of it. The 1st element of cactus reuse for theft would be an appropriation. On the fact, John had appropriate the sun glasses from the display shelf. Under so of Theft Act, it define appropriation where he acquires the property unlawfully.
However John had the possession of the property (sun glasses) where John had place it in Andrews pocket.
The next element would be property where It was define in section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 as a property includes money and all other property, real or personal, Including things In action and other Intangible property. On the fact, the sun glasses can be categorized under the property of tangible. The 3rd elements of a theft would be belonging to another. Here John and Andrew had steal sun glasses from Tests store. Near so(1), gives a general tattletale AT Delousing to another wanly goes beyond ownership.
As per the case where John and Andrew had stolen property belonging to the Tests Store. The next important element would be men’s rear, where John and Andrew had dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving others. SO(1) define what is a permanently depriving others, where they had appropriate the property (sun glasses) with permanent intention of depriving from the Tests Store. And they have intention to treat the things as their win.
As per the case of DIP v Lavender as the definition of dishonestly is not defined under Theft Act 1968.
However there is a test in R v Gosh where they had acted within the ordinary and reasonable people and if yes they had realized that what they was doing between the standard of reasonable man or not. On the fact, John and Andrew acted within reasonable standard of dishonest people and they also realized that what they was doing within standard of reasonable and dishonest people. John and Andrew will be successfully charged under the Theft Act 1968.