Issue

Whether Clara has any criminal liability?

In English Law, Trespass is generally considered a civil or tort law instead of a criminal offence.

There are some necessary components of criminal trespass:

• There need to be restricted entry into or upon another person’s property against the approval of the individual in the ownership or custody
• It can be direct or indirect
• Must be voluntary
• Such unlawful stay or entry has to be with an intention

According to the Theft Act 1968 of section 1, an individual is liable of theft if he or she deceitfully takes property or goods belonging to another people or individual with the intend of enduringly depriving the other individual of it.

There are 5 components that are used to develop it as a criminal wrongdoing.

These are:

• Appropriation
• Property or assets
• Property belonging to another individual/s
• Deceitfully or fraudulently
• The intention to enduringly or permanently deprive

Shoplifting contains taking items or products from a store without paying for them first. It would rely on the price or cost of the products a person takes to decide what laws they would be charged under.

Under section 1 of the Theft Act 1986, A person doing such shoplifting comes under this Act.

Under section 176 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, if the value of the stolen products or articles is less than £200, the Act will apply to the person doing the low-value shoplifting.

According to the Fraud Act 2006, an individual is in breach if he –

1. Deceitfully makes an untrue statement or representation,
2. Aims, by making the representation –

• To expose another person to a danger of loss
• To make a benefit for another or himself

A statement or representation is untrue or false if –

1. It is misleading or untrue,
2. The individual making it aware that it might be or it is misleading or untrue.

In the given scenario, Clara entered the staff room even though she read that the room was for staff only. It can be said that she has intentionally trespassed or encroached upon the property of another person/s (League Against Cruel Sports V. Scott [1986] QB 240). She voluntarily went to the staff room knowing that the room was only for employees. In addition, the law has created certain circumstances where encroachment on land can also be considered a criminal offence.

Further, Clara went into the staff room and took two purses from the coat pocket. The purse belonged to the store that it held fraudulently or deceitfully with intent to deprive them permanently or enduringly. In R V Tuner [1971] 1 WLR 901, the court found that the offender would be liable if the stolen property belonged to another person. Similarly, Clara also fraudulently took the property of another person with the intention of enduringly or permanently depriving it. However, if the item is abandoned, the person taking the item may not be guilty of theft (R V. (Adrian) Small [1987] Crim L 778). Not only this, even after taking two purses, she did not pay the price of the purse. This also shows that she had taken the purse and did not want to pay the price at the bill counter. It can be said that she stole purses with the intention of permanently depriving it. This indicates that she had the actus reus element which is too important to make a conduct or omission an offence.

Law

While shopping at the supermarket, she noticed a joint of meat and intentionally kept it in her bag instead of in store basket. This shows that she had no intention of giving the joint meat money and fraudulently put them in her bag. She deliberately stolen the item because she intentionally kept a joint of meat in her bag and not in the basket so that she would not pay the cost of the meat. Under section 1 of the Theft Act, an individual will be liable for a criminal offense if he or she voluntarily takes goods from a store without first paying. Similarly, in the case of Clara, it is clearly shown that she intended take the meat without paying the price (R V. Warner (1970) 55 Cr App R 93). If she intended to pay for the meat, she would put the item (the meat joint) in a basket instead of in her bag (R V. Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299). 

Apart from this, if the stolen goods (meat) are less than 200 pounds, then the stolen person/s will be charged under section 176 of the Anti-Social Behavior, Crime and Police act. However, if the value of the article exceeds £200, she will be charged under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. This would depend on the value or cost of the item stolen by her and under which law she would be charged on the ground of shoplifting.

Clara learns that a supermarket security guard knew she had a joint of meats in her bag instead of a store basket because the security guard was watching her while she was shopping. She put the meat from her bag into the store’s basket and paid for each product and left the supermarket. As she was leaving the supermarket, the security guard stopped her and said that she had seen her walk into the staff room and put a joint of meat in her bag.

To consider the statement to be false or untrue because the individual making it knows that it is misleading or untrue. This component of mens rea requires some knowledge that the statement may be false and not just a thoughtless awareness of the danger that it may be false. In the given case, Clara then knowingly or deliberately made a false statement to the security guard that she is a security guard of another supermarket with the aim of making profit for herself. She knew that the security guard told the manager of the supermarket that she walked into the staff room even after reading that customers were not allowed into the room and fraudulently stole the meat so that she would not need to pay for the meat. It is important that the offender makes a false statement, the offense is committed as soon as possible, if it was necessarily committed with dishonest intention (R V. Rai [1999] 164 JP [1999]). She knew that she made false representations to the security guard to protect hirself from the conduct she did at the supermarket. False or untrue representations may be implied or expressed and may be stated in the conduct or words of the defenders. In the given scenario, Clara clearly made a false statement. However, she can also defend that she did not permanently steal the meat because she put the meat again in the store market. She can argue in court for her defence on the ground of temporary stolen items under Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Further, if any person dishonestly knows that he or she is dishonest, then that individual will be liable to fraud act under the law (Ivey V. Genting Casinos, [2017] AlI ER 134). Similarly, Clara also knew that she dishonestly misrepresented herself to the security guards, so she could also be liable for fraud under the Act.

Application

Conclusion

It can be concluded that there are various criminal liabilities of which Clara will be charged. At first, she deliberately went to the staff room, knowing that the room was only for staff. Therefore, she can be charged on the ground of trespass because she went to someone’s property without permission. After this she took two purses from the coat in the staff room. This suggests that she stole purses without paying first, thus she could be charged with theft. Moreover, while shopping in the supermarket she took a joint of meat and put it in her bag instead of store basket. It can be observed that she intentionally put meat in her bag without paying any cost. She has carried out every element of the theft like an item (meat and purses), object belonged to others (supermarket), by fraud or deceit, and intends to deprive permanently.

In addition, she fraudulently or deceitfully made a false statement that she was a security guard of another supermarket because she knew that when she went into the staff room the security guard saw her and also see when she stole a joint of meat. She protects herself by passing fraudulent representations from the security guards. So, it can be said that she can be liable for offenses related to theft, trespass, fraud and shoplifting in supermarkets.

References

Legislations

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act

The Fraud Act 2006

The Theft Act 1968

Cases

Ivey V. Genting Casinos, [2017] AlI ER 134

League Against Cruel Sports V. Scott [1986] QB 240

R V Tuner [1971] 1 WLR 901

R V. (Adrian) Small [1987] Crim L 778

R V. Rai [1999] 164 JP [1999]

R V. Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299

R V. Warner (1970) 55 Cr App R 93

Articles & Journals

Burgum, S., Jones, H. and Powell, R., 2021. Manufacturing mandates: Property, race, and the criminalisation of trespass in England and Wales. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, p.23996544211067381.

Crocker, R., Skidmore, M., Webb, S., Garner, S., Gill, M. and Graham, J., 2019. Uncovering organized shoplifting and theft networks. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 13(4), pp.377-385.

Draper, M.J., Ibezim, V. and Newton, P.M., 2017. Are Essay Mills committing fraud? An analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 Fraud Act (UK). International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13(1), pp.1-14.

Leggett, Z., 2018. Theft: appropriation through submitting false claims? Darroux v R. Journal of Criminal Law, 82(4), pp.287-291.

Sumner, C., 2017. The spirit of sport: the case for criminalisation of doping in the UK. The International Sports Law Journal, 16(3), pp.217-227.

Book

Comer, M.J., 2017. Corporate fraud. Routledge.