On Friday 19th January, Liz Lemon witnessed an elderly man, identified later to be Albert Trotter, slip and fall on some ice. She saw a man described to be ‘middle-aged’ come to help Albert up, and while doing so she saw that he ‘reached into the old man’s jacket and remove something… the size of a typical wallet’. This first crime can be identified to be a theft, a summary offence, which under the Theft Act is defined as, ‘dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’. The Act then defines ‘dishonestly’ to be ‘appropriates the property in belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it’ . In the case of R v Ghosh , Lord Lane CJ set out the test for dishonesty;
‘(1) 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 them standards, then the jury must consider that whether the (2) defendant himself must have realized that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.’
The second limb of this test has since been overruled by the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos . In this case the Supreme Court ruled that what the defendant thought of his actions and what he deemed to be honest or dishonest as irrelevant, thus simplifying the trial as it made the test much more objective by removing the element of subjectivity.
The Act then defines the word ‘appropriate’ to be, ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation’ . ‘Property’ is defined as ‘includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’. The Act defines ‘belonging to another’ as when a person is seen to be ‘having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest’ . Finally, the Act defines ‘with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’ as ‘intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights .
Therefore, it can be seen that Albert was a victim of theft as his wallet was stolen under the statutory definition along with definitions found in case law. In Albert’s statement he recalled that he had his ‘bus pass, bank card and £200 in notes’, this therefore can be seen that the actus reus of the crime is present as the man has appropriated Albert’s wallet and the contents of it. The mens rea can be seen to be also present due to the dishonesty and Albert being permanently deprived of his property. The case of R v Hinks can be seen to have parallels with this situation as the defendant in the case also appropriated property from an older gentleman who was vulnerable, just like Albert. The problem with this case however is that the victim was gullible and was coerced into giving money, which under civil law is legal. Furthermore, in the case of Lawrence v MPC it was held that an appropriation of property can take place without explicit consent from the owner. In accordance to the sentencing guidelines, a person guilty of theft can face imprisonment . Factors such as previous convictions, mitigating and aggravating factors will be taken into account too. The case of DPP v Gomez it was held that appropriation of property does not require the absence of consent. Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that,
‘it is no longer an ingredient of the offence of theft that the taking should be without the owner’s consent and second, that an appropriation may occur even though the owner has permitted or consented to the property being taken.’
This further reinforces the case of R v Hinks where the defendant was given consent, but the victim was vulnerable and gullible.
With regards to any defences, it is unlikely that there will be any as there is strong evidence against Angus including the possession of £186.20 found in the jeans he was wearing the day he stole from Albert. Moreover, although Albert himself could not identify Angus, Elizabeth did during the Video Identification Parade as him being number two on the video.
The next offence that can be identified is a series of assaults and battery. It can be seen from the statement that Jimmy was assaulted by Angus which in the hospital’s statement shows left him in the intensive care unit. In Jessie Pinkman’s statement she recollects that Angus Mcgyver, the same offender who was identified by Elizabeth Lemon to be the thief who stole from Albert Trotter, to have been drinking on the night the assault took place. Jessie was in a relationship with Angus for six months before they broke up three months prior to the events on the night of 19th January.
Jessie remembers that she saw Angus drinking lager and that he ‘drunk about six pints’. This could therefore be seen as voluntary intoxication and may be able to be used as a partial defence as the intoxication may have not allowed Angus to form the necessary mens rea for the assault upon Jimmy. Prior to this however, Jessie wrote in the statement that Angus ‘grabbed my bottom’ which amounts to a battery as stated in the case of R v Thomas that even touching clothing without consent amounts to a battery. Another case which demonstrates this is R v Ireland where Lord Steyn defined it to be an ‘unlawful application of by the defendant upon the victim’. Jessie stated that ‘he still flirts with me’, therefore, Angus would not be able to use intoxications as a defence as it is a basic intent crime.
Furthermore, his intent to perform the battery would still be intact if he was not drunk due to his history with Jessie. In the case of R v Kingston the judge ruled that intoxicated intent is still intent as without being intoxicated he would have still acted in this manner. Thus, Angus is liable for a battery upon Jessie and the law states that a person who is found guilty for this can face up to six months in prison according to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act .
Jimmy Kirk then came over and ‘shoved’ Angus, this could also be seen as a battery as the case of Collins v Wilcock distinguished a difference between battery and assault. In this case Goff LJ defined a battery to be ‘actual infliction of unlawful force upon another person’. Therefore, it can be disputed whether Jimmy performed a battery or not as the terms ‘unlawful force’ can be viewed differently to different people.
Jimmy then ‘got right into Angus’ face’; if Jimmy had hit him in it would have been an assault however, it was Angus who ‘swung for Jimmy’. Under section 47 of Offences Against the Person Act this can be seen as assault. The act defines assault to be ‘causing bodily harm’ . In this case, there was harm caused as ‘blood started spurting from Jimmy’s face’. Moreover, the case of Collins v Wilcock assault was defined as to ‘apprehend infliction of immediate unlawful force’. This can be seen to have happened as Jimmy got into Angus’ face and he would have apprehended that Angus would retaliate. Angus then used unlawful force, in essence, glassing Jimmy, as ‘there were traces of blood on some of the shards of glass’ as Jessie recollected.
The case of Tuberville v Savage stated that words can amount to an assault, therefore when Jimmy tells Angus, ‘you should leave before I make you’ the law may see this as an assault. Thus, Jimmy may be liable for an assault upon Angus. However, in the case of Tuberville, it was held that there was no threat of violence although, Jimmy stating that he would make Angus leave may seem that he may use force to do that. Therefore, it is evident that it could be viewed either way. This is further reinforced by the case of R v Constanza as the jury viewed that immediacy can be found in words thus can amount to an assault. This case overruled the case of R v Meade and Belt where the it was held by Holroyd J that no assault was committed as ‘no words… are equivalent to an assault.’
The case of Logdon v DPP however questions what ‘immediate force’ is, this may be left up to the jury or they may use the reasonable man test whereby they ask if the reasonable man would have apprehended immediate force. The definition of assault is further discussed in the case of Fagan v MPC where it is stated, ‘an assault is committed where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence’.
Moreover, ‘infliction’ according to R v Burstow does not require physical force. This therefore shows that Angus attacking Jimmy was definitely an infliction of violence. Furthermore, this would be seen as a section 18 and section 20 assault. Section 18 states, ‘attempting to shoot, or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm’ and section 20 states ‘whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument’. The term wound has several definitions set by case law. In the case of Moriarty v Brookes a wound is described to be ‘an injury to the skin by which the skin is broke… and there was bleeding’. By this definition it can be seen that Angus has ‘maliciously’ wounded Jimmy causing grievous bodily harm which has resulted in him losing an eye and permanent scarring to his face.
In the statement written by Blurton Royal Hospital they stated that Jimmy had ‘severe lacerations to the face and a serious eye wound due to the glass in the retina’. Thus, it can be seen that there has been grievous bodily harm. The hospital later affirmed that they were ‘unable to save Mr Kirk’s eye’ and is ‘currently in intensive care as a result of his injuries’. This further indicates strongly towards a s.18 and s.20 assault charge as the Act states any ‘grievous bodily harm’ amounts to a s.20 assault. The case of DPP v Smith the terms ‘grievous bodily harm’ is defined to be ‘really serious harm’. Due to Angus’ intoxication the jury will look at whether he intended to inflict grievous bodily harm by using the reasonable man test.
Actual bodily harm can further be defined by the case of R v Donovan as ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’. This can be seen to have happened in this situation as Jimmy has lost an eye as a result of Angus’ actions which in turn have affected Jimmy’s health and comfort of sight.
Moreover, the jury may carry look at the factual causation of the offences by applying the ‘but for’ test. This test asks the question, ‘but for the actions of the defendant would the offence have occurred?’ If the answer is yes, then the defendant would not be liable however if the answer is no the defendant will be seen to be liable. Applying this test to this situation, it can be seen that Angus is liable for the offence due to him voluntarily getting drunk and performing a battery on Jessie. Therefore, he fails the ‘but for’ test.
In the case of R v Savage Lord Ackner states that,
‘it is quite unnecessary that the accused should either have intended or foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person… might result.’
This therefore shows that due to the level of harm inflicted upon the victim, it was not deemed necessary to demonstrate the mens rea of the offence. The fact that they should have foreseen that some harm would result is enough. Therefore, the prosecution in this situation may not have to prove the mens rea due to the level of injury inflicted upon Jimmy.
Angus’ intoxication could possibly be a partial defence as this is a specific intent crime as there is the denial of the mens rea even though the actus reus took place. However, it may be that he is found guilty on all accounts due to it being voluntary intoxication, he will be seen responsible for his state as it was through his own choice as set out by the case of DPP v Majewski .
In conclusion, it can be seen that Angus is liable for the theft of Albert Trotter’s wallet under the Theft Act and the principles set out by several cases. It can be seen that Angus dishonestly appropriated Albert’s wallet with the intention to permanently deprive him of it as defined by the Act itself. He will have no defence for the theft and will be charged in the Magistrate’s court as it is a summary offence. The Magistrate’s will sentence him accordingly the maximum time he can spend in prison for the theft is six months according to the sentencing guidelines.
He is also liable for a battery whereby he touched Jessie Pinkman without her consent which then led to the section 18 and section 20 assault (grievous bodily harm) of Jimmy Kirk who as a result lost his eye and will have permanent scarring to his face. The maximum sentence for a section 20 assault is five years imprisonment, however the Magistrate’s court can pass the case along to the Crown Court if they feel that the case is beyond their sentencing power. Due to the nature of the offence also being a specific intent crime, Angus will also be tried for a section 18 assault where they must prove intention of the offence carried out. Therefore, this offence is triable either way.
With regards to any arising defences, intoxication may be considered but it is unlikely that it will stand as without him being intoxicated it is probable that this may still have happened due to Angus’ history with Jessie.