M3
If customers saw the police coming into Nando’s then they would question why that they are there.
Also, if the police became a regular presence then this would put customers off going to Nando’s and
therefore Nando’s would start to lose custom and profit. If the presence of food standards officers
was known inside Nando’s then customers would be careful with the food that they are eating. They
could start asking the staff questions about the food and what the problem is. This would cause panic
amongst customers and they would leave the restaurant and not come back. Another damaging
effect would be that customers would tell people they know about food standards being in Nando’s
and then they wouldn’t go. Also, this could affect a number of restaurants as people would not trust
the company anymore. The more damaging authority is immigration officials as they impose big fines
and if Nando’s has 10 illegal workers that is £150,000 out of Nando’s, which could potentially ruin
them. This could be due to the reputation of the business becoming degraded and they start gaining
bad reviews from customers and they would lose their appeal to customers. Shareholders would not
want to be part of a business that employs illegal workers and they would potentially quit the
company and sell their shares back which would cripple Nando’s investments. Investors put a lot of
money into businesses and Nando’s may find themselves in a financial crisis if they haven’t got
customers coming through the doors and their investors have gone to another company. Also,
customers would question why there are illegal workers there and question Nando’s recruitment
process; this could put people off from applying for a job there as well.
D1
To prevent loss of profits and disruption in the store we should introduce new measures such as
more security in store. This could be useful as plain clothes guards and uniformed guards could
patrol the store which could lower the theft levels. More cctv cameras on premises’ would impact a
lot as we can then pinpoint who the thieves are and whether they come back again or not. Also,
adding more security tags onto items would boost our profits as they are the more expensive items
which are good for sales.
However in saying this the Theft Act 1968 doesn’t really constitute to whether a person is guilty or
not. With appropriation how many rights must be assumed for someone to have a appropriated. In
the R v Morris case the court held that ‘There need not be an appropriation of all the rights of an
owner. The appropriation took place when there was an adverse interference with the rights of an
owner which was at the point of switching the label, not at the point of taking the goods from the
shelf’. In regards to this there should be an outline of what the rights are that can be assumed. With
property which is s4 of the Theft Act only intangible property and things such as money etc can be
used against a defendant. Why can’t tangible property, things that can be held be used against a
defendant? With belonging to another this s5 protects all users since an owner can steal their own
property. This is shown in the R v Turner (no2) case where the defendant took back his own car but
court decided that it was in possession of the car repairer even though the defendant legally owned
it. This shows a weakness as defendants could use this to their advantage and say that the property
was theirs to get away with the offence. Theft seems to rely on the issue of dishonesty a lot which is
unfair to us all as we all appropriate property belonging to another everyday. For example we all go
into supermarkets and pick items up and then its up to us whether to carry out the actus reus and
mens rea of theft then. Furthermore, the act only discloses what would be seen as not dishonest but
does not define dishonest behaviour. The Theft Act does not provide us with a definition of what
amounts to dishonesty because society's view tends to change. Within dishonesty is the GHOSH test
If customers saw the police coming into Nando’s then they would question why that they are there.
Also, if the police became a regular presence then this would put customers off going to Nando’s and
therefore Nando’s would start to lose custom and profit. If the presence of food standards officers
was known inside Nando’s then customers would be careful with the food that they are eating. They
could start asking the staff questions about the food and what the problem is. This would cause panic
amongst customers and they would leave the restaurant and not come back. Another damaging
effect would be that customers would tell people they know about food standards being in Nando’s
and then they wouldn’t go. Also, this could affect a number of restaurants as people would not trust
the company anymore. The more damaging authority is immigration officials as they impose big fines
and if Nando’s has 10 illegal workers that is £150,000 out of Nando’s, which could potentially ruin
them. This could be due to the reputation of the business becoming degraded and they start gaining
bad reviews from customers and they would lose their appeal to customers. Shareholders would not
want to be part of a business that employs illegal workers and they would potentially quit the
company and sell their shares back which would cripple Nando’s investments. Investors put a lot of
money into businesses and Nando’s may find themselves in a financial crisis if they haven’t got
customers coming through the doors and their investors have gone to another company. Also,
customers would question why there are illegal workers there and question Nando’s recruitment
process; this could put people off from applying for a job there as well.
D1
To prevent loss of profits and disruption in the store we should introduce new measures such as
more security in store. This could be useful as plain clothes guards and uniformed guards could
patrol the store which could lower the theft levels. More cctv cameras on premises’ would impact a
lot as we can then pinpoint who the thieves are and whether they come back again or not. Also,
adding more security tags onto items would boost our profits as they are the more expensive items
which are good for sales.
However in saying this the Theft Act 1968 doesn’t really constitute to whether a person is guilty or
not. With appropriation how many rights must be assumed for someone to have a appropriated. In
the R v Morris case the court held that ‘There need not be an appropriation of all the rights of an
owner. The appropriation took place when there was an adverse interference with the rights of an
owner which was at the point of switching the label, not at the point of taking the goods from the
shelf’. In regards to this there should be an outline of what the rights are that can be assumed. With
property which is s4 of the Theft Act only intangible property and things such as money etc can be
used against a defendant. Why can’t tangible property, things that can be held be used against a
defendant? With belonging to another this s5 protects all users since an owner can steal their own
property. This is shown in the R v Turner (no2) case where the defendant took back his own car but
court decided that it was in possession of the car repairer even though the defendant legally owned
it. This shows a weakness as defendants could use this to their advantage and say that the property
was theirs to get away with the offence. Theft seems to rely on the issue of dishonesty a lot which is
unfair to us all as we all appropriate property belonging to another everyday. For example we all go
into supermarkets and pick items up and then its up to us whether to carry out the actus reus and
mens rea of theft then. Furthermore, the act only discloses what would be seen as not dishonest but
does not define dishonest behaviour. The Theft Act does not provide us with a definition of what
amounts to dishonesty because society's view tends to change. Within dishonesty is the GHOSH test
