D1
Write a second report which highlights the problems with the law. This report should highlight;
The problems that businesses have when trying to apply the law are, that it can be complicated
to understand it as it may have less details regarding the section, and that they might not have
covered all the law that will affect their business which can negative effects in the issues that
they come across. Also, the business may not be aware of how the law system works which can
be frustrating at times when they need it most.
Theft Dishonesty:
At the moment, there have been sections of the law which is difficult to understand, such as
Section 11 of The Fraud Act 2006 and Dishonesty, etc. The reason for Section 11, is that it is
too prolonged and complicated which makes it time consuming to read through and frustrating
to understand all of it afterwards. Nevertheless, it has helped many times in cases held in court
and is acceptable to be used for future cases. Also, as its length is quite long it reduces the
amount of loopholes within the law which keeps the law in tact.
However, Section 11 of The Fraud Act could be made clearer if it is shortened but detailed so
that it is easier to understand whilst reading and that it doesn’t take up too much time. This can
help in cases, by helping the judge to see which acts the defendant did commit so that he can
be prosecuted accordingly to the law, and take up less time to find out whether the accused is
guilty or not.
Theft Appropriation:
Oppositely in theft, appropriation can sometimes be had to prove because it is an assumption
by a person which cannot be proved as it is in an intangible object. Also, a person cannot know
another person’s intention as it is a mens rea which can’t be seen. This makes it harder to prove
a person guilty of theft, unless the person sees the actus reus of the other person doing a
wrongful act. Furthermore, the word appropriation has been interpreted so broadly that merely
touching a property amounted to appropriation, also a case Hinks (2000) proclaimed Gomez
(1993) and held that indefeasible (not subject to being lost, annulled, or overturned) gifts of
property could be appropriated– therefore valid gifts could technically be stolen. In addition to
this, in Hinks (2000), property was validly transferred to the defendant, but it was held that gifts
could amount to theft, causing much controversy. How can defendants “appropriate property
belonging to another” where property is validly transferred, making it their own property? Since
the Theft Act adopts civil concept, the arguments raised in Hinks (2000) have no standing.
Additionally, appropriation need to be redefined and returned to the state in Morris (1983)– that
being “appropriation” is found where there is unfavourable interference or taking someone's
power or property by force such as an owner’s rights. This can reduce the broadness of the
Write a second report which highlights the problems with the law. This report should highlight;
The problems that businesses have when trying to apply the law are, that it can be complicated
to understand it as it may have less details regarding the section, and that they might not have
covered all the law that will affect their business which can negative effects in the issues that
they come across. Also, the business may not be aware of how the law system works which can
be frustrating at times when they need it most.
Theft Dishonesty:
At the moment, there have been sections of the law which is difficult to understand, such as
Section 11 of The Fraud Act 2006 and Dishonesty, etc. The reason for Section 11, is that it is
too prolonged and complicated which makes it time consuming to read through and frustrating
to understand all of it afterwards. Nevertheless, it has helped many times in cases held in court
and is acceptable to be used for future cases. Also, as its length is quite long it reduces the
amount of loopholes within the law which keeps the law in tact.
However, Section 11 of The Fraud Act could be made clearer if it is shortened but detailed so
that it is easier to understand whilst reading and that it doesn’t take up too much time. This can
help in cases, by helping the judge to see which acts the defendant did commit so that he can
be prosecuted accordingly to the law, and take up less time to find out whether the accused is
guilty or not.
Theft Appropriation:
Oppositely in theft, appropriation can sometimes be had to prove because it is an assumption
by a person which cannot be proved as it is in an intangible object. Also, a person cannot know
another person’s intention as it is a mens rea which can’t be seen. This makes it harder to prove
a person guilty of theft, unless the person sees the actus reus of the other person doing a
wrongful act. Furthermore, the word appropriation has been interpreted so broadly that merely
touching a property amounted to appropriation, also a case Hinks (2000) proclaimed Gomez
(1993) and held that indefeasible (not subject to being lost, annulled, or overturned) gifts of
property could be appropriated– therefore valid gifts could technically be stolen. In addition to
this, in Hinks (2000), property was validly transferred to the defendant, but it was held that gifts
could amount to theft, causing much controversy. How can defendants “appropriate property
belonging to another” where property is validly transferred, making it their own property? Since
the Theft Act adopts civil concept, the arguments raised in Hinks (2000) have no standing.
Additionally, appropriation need to be redefined and returned to the state in Morris (1983)– that
being “appropriation” is found where there is unfavourable interference or taking someone's
power or property by force such as an owner’s rights. This can reduce the broadness of the
