A movie plot or an exam question. A man walks through the front door of a hotel with food in his hand. The front desk calls the Police and alleges that the food is stolen. Deliveroo just dropped it off for him or he got it a dollar store. He has the receipt. You made a presumption and commited the criminal act of Mischief. If you presumed you had the right to take your wife's medical file, wouldn't you be in possession of the proceeds if crime. If you presumed to have the right to steal a chocolate bar, wouldn't you be in possession of the proceeds of crime. White Jamaicans stole the files and then wanted Warren to sue in their culture while holding the files ransom to show that he owns it. But, the files are copies of documents already filed in Court that show he owns it. Wouldn't he own the files if he wrote them and owns the business name on the files as printed on his office printer. Being in possession of the files or file copies is possession of the proceeds of crime regardless of your Jamaican emotions. There is nothing wrong with Jamaican or Trinidadian emotions but with crime. We are still concerned with commas, periods and good English in Court and no evidence of contempt in all cases in the Law profession. If these were Medical, real estate or any other kind of file involving private information, could you be in possession of them? You cannot unilaterally presume the right to be in possession of them. Who told you to do it. It's in violation of the Court rules and an order of Court to see them returned. It's like you are persecuting the owner; Warren and you think the white world will understand. It's Contempt of Court. There is nothing particularly remarkable about him or the files except it looks like he won several times in Civil and Criminal Court. But, what do you want with the files? They are the business property of Warren A. Lyon. Start your own business. Write your own file materials. The files or file copies, electronic or paper copies are stolen property. To have the copies or files is to be in possession of stolen property. Simply put, the files or file copies in your Illegal possession, as stolen, are the proceeds of crime, stolen property. Charlemagne Bennett is Contempt of Court personified. Dan Wiliams of the Law Society of Lower Canada, in 2017, had claimed the right unilaterally, contrary to the will and intention of the law society, the right to retain the files and broke all the Law Society rules by doing so. He committed the offence of theft when he did this. It is theft. Each file was a separate item carrying ten years jail time. There were at least 40 files. He caused a coup in his own right. He is not even a paid employee. He was convicted posthumously. He is dead. He should not have said he believed he had the legal rights to keep the files simply because the owner of the firm, Warren A. Lyon, is not white but of Arab ancestry. Dan Williama is dead. THE MENS REA OF THEFT 1. DISHONESTY s2(1)(a) – BELIEF IN LEGAL RIGHT If D mistakenly believes that he owns V’s umbrella, his appropriation of it would not be dishonest whether his mistake, or ignorance, is of fact or law. Moreover, D will not commit theft where he appropriates V’s umbrella in the belief that it belongs to X on whose behalf he is acting. Similarly, D would have a defence if he took a bicycle belonging to V, in order to recoup a debt, under the erroneous belief that the law permitted debts to be recovered in this way. The D’s belief merely has to be honestly held, it does not have to be reasonable. As with all subjective tests, the more outlandish the D’s honest belief is, the less likely he is to be believed. s2(1)(b) – BELIEF IN THE OTHER’S CONSENT This might apply where D’s car has run out of petrol, and D takes a can of petrol from his next-door neighbour V’s garden believing that V would have consented had he known. Again the test is subjective. But D must believe not only that V would have consented to the appropriation but that V would have consented to the appropriation in the particular circumstances. D may believe that his next-door neighbour would consent to his appropriating a pint of milk from his doorstep when D himself had forgotten to leave an order for the milkman; but may believe that his neighbour would not consent to D’s appropriating the milk in order to sell it at a profitto a thirsty hitch-hiker who is passing by. s2(1)(c) – BELIEF THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN LOST Again the test for the D’s belief is subjective. As regards the question of what might be required by taking reasonable steps to discover ownership will depend partly on the identification available, the location in which it is found, and the value of the property. A person finding a £10 note in the street may well come within this subsection, unless he has just seen it fall from the pocket of V who is walking in front of him. Similarly, if D finds a suitcase containing £1m in the street one would expect him to make considerable efforts to locate the owner. It should be kept in mind that s2(1)(c) is concerned with what the D views as reasonable steps. S2(2) – WILLINGNESS TO PAY For example, where D sees V’s newspaper poking out of his letterbox, knowing that he would not wish to sell it, pulls out the newspaper, and leaves its price on V’s doormat, D could be guilty of theft. R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 The defendant was a consultant at a hospital. He falsely claimed fees in respect of an operation that he had not carried out. He claimed that he thought he was not dishonest by his standards because the same amount of money was legitimately payable to him for consultation fees. The judge directed the jury that they must simply apply their own standards. He was convicted of an offence contrary to s15 TA 1968 (which uses the same concept “dishonesty” and appealed against his conviction). The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Lord Lane CJ stated: “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. If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the defendant himself knew he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he did. For example, Robin Hood or those ardent anti-vivisectionists who remove animals from vivisection laboratories are acting dishonestly, even though they may consider themselves to be morally justified in doing what they do, because they know that ordinary people would consider these actions to be dishonest.” 2. INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE R v Warner (1970) 55 Cr App R 93 The defendant took a tool-box to annoy the owner but panicked and hid it when the police were called. He claimed that he intended to replace it as soon as he could do so undetected, but the judge directed the jury that an intention to keep property indefinitely could amount to theft. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. (Note: presumably in practice a jury simply might not believe such a story.) R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299 The defendant had taken money from his employer’s safe and claimed that he intended to pay it back after the weekend. The Court of Appeal held that he had not intended to return the exact coins and notes, and that therefore he was properly convicted of theft. (Note: in such cases it would be far better for the defendant to contend that he was not dishonest given his intention to replace the money with an equivalent fund.)

A movie plot or an exam question.  A man walks through the front door of a hotel with food in his hand.   The front desk calls the Police and alleges that the food is stolen. Deliveroo just dropped it off  for him or he got it a dollar store.  He has the receipt.  You made a presumption and commited the criminal act of Mischief.     If you presumed you had the right to take your wife's medical file, wouldn't you be in possession of the proceeds if crime. If you presumed to have the right to steal a chocolate bar, wouldn't you be in possession of the proceeds of crime.     White Jamaicans stole the files and then wanted Warren to sue in their culture while holding the files ransom to show that he owns it.  But, the files are copies of documents already filed in Court that show he owns it. Wouldn't he own the files if he wrote them and owns the business name on the files as printed on his office printer. Being in possession of the files or file copies is possession of the proceeds of crime regardless of your Jamaican  emotions.  There is nothing wrong with Jamaican or Trinidadian emotions but with crime.  We are still concerned with commas, periods and good English in Court and no evidence of contempt in all cases in the Law profession.   If these were Medical, real estate or any other kind of file involving private information,  could you be in possession of them? You cannot unilaterally presume the right to be in possession of them. Who told you to do it. It's in violation of the Court rules and an order of Court to see them returned.  It's like you are persecuting the owner; Warren and you think the white world will understand. It's Contempt  of Court. There is nothing particularly remarkable about him or the files except it looks like he won several times in Civil and Criminal Court.   But, what do you want with the files? They are the business property of Warren A. Lyon.  Start your own business.  Write your own file materials.  

  

    The files or file copies, electronic or paper copies are stolen property. To have the copies or files is to be  in  possession of stolen property. Simply put, the files or file copies in your Illegal possession, as stolen, are the proceeds of crime, stolen property.   Charlemagne Bennett is Contempt of Court personified.  

Dan Wiliams of the Law Society of Lower Canada, in 2017,  had claimed the right unilaterally, contrary to the will and intention of the law society, the right to retain the files and broke all the Law Society rules by doing so. He committed the offence of theft when he did this. It is theft.   Each file was a separate item carrying ten years jail time. There were at least 40 files.  He caused a coup in his own right. He is not even a paid employee.   He was convicted posthumously.   He is dead. He should not have said he believed he had the legal rights to  keep the files simply because the owner of the firm, Warren A.  Lyon, is not white but of Arab ancestry.    Dan Williama is dead.         

THE MENS REA OF THEFT

1. DISHONESTY

s2(1)(a) – BELIEF IN LEGAL RIGHT

If D mistakenly believes that he owns V’s umbrella, his appropriation of it would not be dishonest whether his mistake, or ignorance, is of fact or law. Moreover, D will not commit theft where he appropriates V’s umbrella in the belief that it belongs to X on whose behalf he is acting. Similarly, D would have a defence if he took a bicycle belonging to V, in order to recoup a debt, under the erroneous belief that the law permitted debts to be recovered in this way. The D’s belief merely has to be honestly held, it does not have to be reasonable. As with all subjective tests, the more outlandish the D’s honest belief is, the less likely he is to be believed.

s2(1)(b) – BELIEF IN THE OTHER’S CONSENT

This might apply where D’s car has run out of petrol, and D takes a can of petrol from his next-door neighbour V’s garden believing that V would have consented had he known. Again the test is subjective. But D must believe not only that V would have consented to the appropriation but that V would have consented to the appropriation in the particular circumstances. D may believe that his next-door neighbour would consent to his appropriating a pint of milk from his doorstep when D himself had forgotten to leave an order for the milkman; but may believe that his neighbour would not consent to D’s appropriating the milk in order to sell it at a profitto a thirsty hitch-hiker who is passing by.

s2(1)(c) – BELIEF THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN LOST

Again the test for the D’s belief is subjective. As regards the question of what might be required by taking reasonable steps to discover ownership will depend partly on the identification available, the location in which it is found, and the value of the property. A person finding a £10 note in the street may well come within this subsection, unless he has just seen it fall from the pocket of V who is walking in front of him. Similarly, if D finds a suitcase containing £1m in the street one would expect him to make considerable efforts to locate the owner. It should be kept in mind that s2(1)(c) is concerned with what the D views as reasonable steps.

S2(2) – WILLINGNESS TO PAY

For example, where D sees V’s newspaper poking out of his letterbox, knowing that he would not wish to sell it, pulls out the newspaper, and leaves its price on V’s doormat, D could be guilty of theft.

R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053

The defendant was a consultant at a hospital. He falsely claimed fees in respect of an operation that he had not carried out. He claimed that he thought he was not dishonest by his standards because the same amount of money was legitimately payable to him for consultation fees. The judge directed the jury that they must simply apply their own standards. He was convicted of an offence contrary to s15 TA 1968 (which uses the same concept “dishonesty” and appealed against his conviction). The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Lord Lane CJ stated:

“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.

If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the defendant himself knew he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he did. For example, Robin Hood or those ardent anti-vivisectionists who remove animals from vivisection laboratories are acting dishonestly, even though they may consider themselves to be morally justified in doing what they do, because they know that ordinary people would consider these actions to be dishonest.”

2. INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE

R v Warner (1970) 55 Cr App R 93

The defendant took a tool-box to annoy the owner but panicked and hid it when the police were called. He claimed that he intended to replace it as soon as he could do so undetected, but the judge directed the jury that an intention to keep property indefinitely could amount to theft. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. (Note: presumably in practice a jury simply might not believe such a story.)

R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299

The defendant had taken money from his employer’s safe and claimed that he intended to pay it back after the weekend. The Court of Appeal held that he had not intended to return the exact coins and notes, and that therefore he was properly convicted of theft. (Note: in such cases it would be far better for the defendant to contend that he was not dishonest given his intention to replace the money with an equivalent fund.)