Lecture notes study book An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure of Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman - ISBN: 9781108741613, Edition: 4th Revised edition, Year of publication: - (work)
Helena Mistry Student ID: 20109247 Word Count: 406
For the past 12 months Yurian has been working as a sales assistant in one of the stores of a premium
fashion retailer “Altara” in London. One evening when the store manager was closing the tills, the End
of Day report revealed a shortfall amounting to £180. An investigation was carried out, and despite
Yurian asserting his innocence he was accused of taking the money from the till. Due to the low
amount involved, the store manager did not report the matter to the police but instead deducted the
missing money from Yurian’s salary.
Very upset and angry at what happened, Yurian decided to recover his loss. On his next day off work
he drove to another “Altara” store located on the opposite side of the city. Once inside the store he
searched among men’s clothing for an expensive suit, and a shirt which he knew cost exactly £180 less
than the suit. Carefully looking around to ensure that no one was watching, Yurian exchanged the
price ticket on the suit for the price ticket on the shirt. He then took the suit to the till and proceeded
to pay the lower price for it. Satisfied that “justice has prevailed”, Yurian left the store and headed
back to his car, at which point he was detained by the store security officer and subsequently charged
with theft of the suit.
Advise whether the prosecution is likely to be successful proving that Yurian had the necessary mens
rea for theft (word limit is 500 words, plus 10% allowance)
In the Theft Act S1 (1), Theft is defined as a person who “dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it...” Yurian clearly commited theft as he
had the mens rea to commit the act even though he didn’t have much as an actus reus. Yurian
committed mens rea as he committed the act “dishonestly” and he had the “intention to permanently
deprive” Altara. Yurian was dishonest as he changed the price tickets for a lower price, therefore the
prosecution can establish that Yurian was dishonest. Dishonesty can be supported by S2 (1) TA 1968 and
Ghosh (1982). However when analysing S2 (1) TA 1968 in more depth, it can be established that Yurian
appropriated the prices and this act states that Yurian was not being dishonest because appropriation is
not being dishonest, on the other hand he doesn’t fulfil all the obligations to label him as honest and the
owner wouldn’t give consent to lowering the price for Yurian and he has no legal right of doing what he
did. Therefore, the Ghosh test is used because none of the S2 situations didn’t apply to Yurian. The
Ghosh test is a subjective test to decide whether the defendant is dishonest or not. The judge in this
case said, "In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting
dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable
and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the
end of the matter and the prosecution fails.” In this situation, a reasonable would not do what Yurian
would as they wouldn’t commit the crime of theft; they would simply speak to their own manager.
Therefore, Yurian successfully establishes the Ghosh test, showing he was dishonest. Intention to
deprive is another part of the mens rea and it is explained in S6 (1). S6 (1) states if he had the inetention
to treat his suit as his own dispose rather than Altara’s rights, that he is thieving from as he is depriving
the company of a genuine sale. Therefore, Yurian had the intention to deprive Altara; meaning overall
he fulfilled the means rea to theft. This shows that the prosecution will be likely to successfully
prosecute him for the crime of theft as he had the mens rea to commit it.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller finernotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £20.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
