Property offences (1 Viewer)

[Angel45]

Heya,

I'm just a bit confused re. property offences, mistakes...s124 and so forth...for crim law

With regards to a unilateral mistake, can the accused be liable for larceny if, provided all the other elements of larceny are fulfilled, there was a fundamental mistake even if possession and/or ownership was transferred?

And with regards to a mutual mistake, can the accused be liable under s124 only if ownership has not been transferred – which can be vitiated if a fundamental mistake except in the case of money– and if the accused has in fact appropriated the property? --> the accused can't be liable for larceny yeah coz of the lack of MR correct?

Also, if any1 has a suggestion on the steps to go through when doing a property q. that'd be gr8...any help is gr8 but

Thanks heaps...

 

[05er]

It's all about just terms. "ON JUST TERMS."

 

[MiuMiu]

Way to be irrelevant.

 

[Demandred]

Wrong! - edit

 

[Jonathan A]

Generally you need to ensure that the original owner still had posession. So consent established means there is no larceny - it was very unfair. Which is why the Crimes Act can hold you liable for fraudulently obtaining goods. Obtaining by false promise of pretences is still a crime and I would think it is more relevant where consent is established.

Remember with larceny, you need to establish the six elements (if you go by Illich), seven elements (if you include right of claim) or eight elements (if you are investigating the offence, i.e. you need to prove it was the defendant) - but all in all of one element is not met, there is no larceny. It does not mean there isn't a remedy. Larceny is perhaps more or less a posession charge, especially where there is a conversion (selling to third party). Anything else would best be covered under the relevant provisions of the Act.


(I think Susan Armstrong answered this on WebCT)

 

[Angel45]

If there was an fundamental mistake, consent is gone. Its larceny.

Yeah, u see that's what I thought but apparently a fundamental mistake only vitiates consent to transfer of ownership.. so if posession is voluntarily handed over nothing can vitiate it and thus not larceny. i thought the notes in the sem. guide read differently.

so i spose if it's not larceny u'd be looking at like whether he induced the mistake


thanks for your help...i think i've got the hang of it.. hehehe.. dunno why i'm finding these damn property ones the worst

 

[Demandred]

Wrong! - edit

 

[Demandred]

!wrong! - edit

 

[05er]

It's all about just terms. "ON JUST TERMS."

I was wrapped up by The Castle on that night; sorry