Total Marks on the oral exam – 78.
PART A
You are a prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service, and you have been asked to
advise the police on what charges are appropriate for the following defendants:
Anna Jacobs – Document 1
Deepak Singh – Document 2
Marco Wilson – Document 3
You will be asked questions to justify the offences and you should make specific
references to the evidence that is provided in the documents when doing so.
,Document 1 – Anna Jacobs
Summary of evidence
Anna Jacobs (aged 22) is currently unemployed but was previously a care worker
looking after residents at an assisted living centre for adults with disabilities.
On 30th November 2023, the owners of the centre received a complaint from the
family of a resident at the home, Lily Grover. Lily is 55 years of age but has
learning disabilities which make her vulnerable. Her family claimed that a valuable
necklace and a sum of money were stolen from her by Anna.
Anna was arrested and interviewed by the police. She confirmed that Lily had
given her the sum of £40 in cash about a month ago. She told the police that she
and Lily have a good relationship, as she has been her carer for over a year. One
day, Anna was chatting to Lily about how she was struggling to pay her bills.
Without any prompting, Lily reached into her purse and handed Anna £40 in cash,
saying: “Here, I don’t need this, you have it, Anna, because you’re my friend”.
Anna admitted to the police that she had felt “a bit guilty” taking the money
but decided that it would be okay in the circumstances because she intended to
repay the money as soon as she got paid. Unfortunately, she has yet not been
able to do so.
When Anna was questioned about the necklace, she admitted taking it from Lily’s
room at the assisted living centre, when Lily was away visiting her family, but said
that she had no idea the necklace was valuable. Anna explained that she wanted
the necklace “to look nice” at a wedding as she had no jewellery of her own to
wear. Anna told the police she assumed Lily would have agreed to her taking
it, as Lily is “a very kind person” and Anna only planned to borrow it over the
weekend. Anna confessed to accessing Lily’s room using the security code to take
the necklace. She also confirmed that, under her contract of employment, she was
aware she only had permission to go into the residents’ rooms for the purposes
of caring for them.
At the wedding, Anna drank several glasses of wine and became very
intoxicated. When one of the guests, Doris, suggested that she go home, Anna
told Doris “to mind her own business”. She then shoved Doris with such force that
Doris fell backwards and hit her face on a table, causing a large bruise.
Anna panicked and ran out of the venue. She grabbed at the necklace to pull it off
her neck so she could hide it in her pocket but, unfortunately, in doing so, she
broke the chain. When questioned, Anna said that she was really upset to find
she had broken the necklace but agreed that she was aware she was being
rough with it.
, D – Anna, employee care taker, employed to take care of Lily.
V – Lilly Grover, 55, learning disabilities, vulnerable, in a home for disabled people.
Offence #1 – theft of money.
Theft – a statutory offence, contrary to s 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Elements of
theft:
1. AR: Appropriation (can apply to a gift) (assumption of any right)
2. AR: Of property
3. AR: Belonging to another
4. MR: Dishonesty
5. MR: With the intention to permanently deprive the other (can include
appropriation of a right without regard to the owner’s rights)
AR: Appropriation
Defined in s 3(1)
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he
has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or
dealing with it as owner.
For the purpose of determining AR of the offence, consent of the owner doesn’t
matter (Lawrence v MPC) when asking for something, but Anna did not ask for the
$40.
Gifts can also amount to appropriation – R v Hinks because ‘appropriation’ is a
neutral word and this is aligned with the meaning in Lawrence.; although this does
conflict with civil law where the passing of property means a change in the owned;
the owner cannot steal from themselves.
This element of the AR is satisfied.
AR: Property
Defined s 4(1)
‘Property’ includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible
property
Money is explicitly mentioned in the act in its ordinary meaning of currency.
This element of the AR is satisfied.
AR: Belonging to another
Mentioned in s1(1) in its ordinary meaning. This is only an issue with regards to
timing of possession; Edwards v Ddin would apply but it is irrelevant here.
This element of AR is satisfied.
MR: Dishonesty
Defined s 2(1) what isn’t dishonest:
(1) Belief in the right to appropriate
(2) Belief in consent
PART A
You are a prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service, and you have been asked to
advise the police on what charges are appropriate for the following defendants:
Anna Jacobs – Document 1
Deepak Singh – Document 2
Marco Wilson – Document 3
You will be asked questions to justify the offences and you should make specific
references to the evidence that is provided in the documents when doing so.
,Document 1 – Anna Jacobs
Summary of evidence
Anna Jacobs (aged 22) is currently unemployed but was previously a care worker
looking after residents at an assisted living centre for adults with disabilities.
On 30th November 2023, the owners of the centre received a complaint from the
family of a resident at the home, Lily Grover. Lily is 55 years of age but has
learning disabilities which make her vulnerable. Her family claimed that a valuable
necklace and a sum of money were stolen from her by Anna.
Anna was arrested and interviewed by the police. She confirmed that Lily had
given her the sum of £40 in cash about a month ago. She told the police that she
and Lily have a good relationship, as she has been her carer for over a year. One
day, Anna was chatting to Lily about how she was struggling to pay her bills.
Without any prompting, Lily reached into her purse and handed Anna £40 in cash,
saying: “Here, I don’t need this, you have it, Anna, because you’re my friend”.
Anna admitted to the police that she had felt “a bit guilty” taking the money
but decided that it would be okay in the circumstances because she intended to
repay the money as soon as she got paid. Unfortunately, she has yet not been
able to do so.
When Anna was questioned about the necklace, she admitted taking it from Lily’s
room at the assisted living centre, when Lily was away visiting her family, but said
that she had no idea the necklace was valuable. Anna explained that she wanted
the necklace “to look nice” at a wedding as she had no jewellery of her own to
wear. Anna told the police she assumed Lily would have agreed to her taking
it, as Lily is “a very kind person” and Anna only planned to borrow it over the
weekend. Anna confessed to accessing Lily’s room using the security code to take
the necklace. She also confirmed that, under her contract of employment, she was
aware she only had permission to go into the residents’ rooms for the purposes
of caring for them.
At the wedding, Anna drank several glasses of wine and became very
intoxicated. When one of the guests, Doris, suggested that she go home, Anna
told Doris “to mind her own business”. She then shoved Doris with such force that
Doris fell backwards and hit her face on a table, causing a large bruise.
Anna panicked and ran out of the venue. She grabbed at the necklace to pull it off
her neck so she could hide it in her pocket but, unfortunately, in doing so, she
broke the chain. When questioned, Anna said that she was really upset to find
she had broken the necklace but agreed that she was aware she was being
rough with it.
, D – Anna, employee care taker, employed to take care of Lily.
V – Lilly Grover, 55, learning disabilities, vulnerable, in a home for disabled people.
Offence #1 – theft of money.
Theft – a statutory offence, contrary to s 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Elements of
theft:
1. AR: Appropriation (can apply to a gift) (assumption of any right)
2. AR: Of property
3. AR: Belonging to another
4. MR: Dishonesty
5. MR: With the intention to permanently deprive the other (can include
appropriation of a right without regard to the owner’s rights)
AR: Appropriation
Defined in s 3(1)
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he
has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or
dealing with it as owner.
For the purpose of determining AR of the offence, consent of the owner doesn’t
matter (Lawrence v MPC) when asking for something, but Anna did not ask for the
$40.
Gifts can also amount to appropriation – R v Hinks because ‘appropriation’ is a
neutral word and this is aligned with the meaning in Lawrence.; although this does
conflict with civil law where the passing of property means a change in the owned;
the owner cannot steal from themselves.
This element of the AR is satisfied.
AR: Property
Defined s 4(1)
‘Property’ includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible
property
Money is explicitly mentioned in the act in its ordinary meaning of currency.
This element of the AR is satisfied.
AR: Belonging to another
Mentioned in s1(1) in its ordinary meaning. This is only an issue with regards to
timing of possession; Edwards v Ddin would apply but it is irrelevant here.
This element of AR is satisfied.
MR: Dishonesty
Defined s 2(1) what isn’t dishonest:
(1) Belief in the right to appropriate
(2) Belief in consent
