How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jo C. Your Own Question
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 70652
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
12826847
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

1) What is the difference between Section 32 of Larceny Act

Customer Question

1) What is the difference between Section 32 of Larceny Act of 1916 and Section 2 of Fraud 2006.?
2) Are the Elements the same in both sections 32(1) of Larceny Act of 1916 and Section 2 of Fraud 2006 or NOT.?
3) Can Bad character of an offender under section S.32(1) of Larceny Act 1916 be used in S.2 of Fraud Act or Not?
Submitted: 5 months ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

Is this for an assignment?

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
No
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

What is the context?

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
In the context of the indictment of fraud by false pretence(False representation).I just want to clarify the following legal questions:
1) What is the difference between Section 32 of Larceny Act of 1916 and Section 2 of Fraud 2006.?
2) Are the Elements the same in both sections 32(1) of Larceny Act of 1916 and Section 2 of Fraud 2006 or NOT.?
3) Can Bad character of an offender under section S.32(1) of Larceny Act 1916 be used inS.2 of Fraud Act or Not?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

Are you charged with these offences?

We don't use the Larceny Act anymore.

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
No but my brother.
He was charged under s.2 of Fraud 2006.
Crown made a bad character Application in relation to is previous fraud offence under section 15 of theft act 1968.
My brother then want to rely on a court of Appeal Authority under section 32(1) of Larceny Act 1916.(repealed in 1968)
Please we are certain the elements of the three acts are the same i.e. s.32(1) of Larceny Act 1916, S.15 of Theft Act 1968, and s.2 of Fraud Act 2006. i.e. the reason for my above questions.
It is apparent that this specific s.32 of Larceny 1916 is the foundation of/for both s.15 of theft 1968 and s.2 of Fraud act 2006.If the crown can make bad character application relating a 1968 act then why can the authority of preceding act be relied on?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

Oh I see.

It really doesn't matter whether the elements are the same or not. Broadly the fraud act hasn't changed all that much. In any event, the case law can be relied upon as persuasive argument even if it predates.

The only issue here though is that very old authorities tend to be less persuasive because of their age and the fact that modern thinking has changed.

The three statutes are not quite the same by virtue of the fact that they are not the same and use different words but the elements are broadly the same.

Can I clarify anything for you?

Jo

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
The key elements in the all three Acts are of the same words and wording(expression) namely (1) false pretence(false representation), (2) Intend and (3)Gain/Loss of property.Please, am I wrong? and why?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

No, you are not wrong. As I said above.

That is right.

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
Please, what is the best way/format to use all these point as a persuasive argument?
I hope that question makes sense.
Customer: replied 5 months ago.
Please, what is the best way/format to use all these points as a persuasive argument?
I hope that question makes sense.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

It is not really something I can comment upon in this forum. I have had no vision of the evidence.

You would really need to offer the authority to your solicitors and counsel.

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
Stare decisis, (the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts), does not have time limitation though. Am I wrong again?.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

Well, it is not really applicable.

It is not really a rule of law either.

Cases turn upon their facts.

The reasoning within the cases is what gives rise to principles.

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
It was just a general question if Stare decisis has time limitation especially on cases with similar facts. .
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

There are no limitations upon law.

But some law falls into disuse.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

At least Acts of Parliament do not have statutes.

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
Please then see the reasoning of court of appeal in Clucas 1949.
Which is states:
The false pretence was merely a contributory cause, the effective cause of the money being received is being the fact that the chosen horse won the race.’’Please see the similarity between the cases below: i.e. (1) false names, (2)intention to (3) make gain/cause a loss and (4)property.
Please note two crucial actions in both cases (1) betting correctly on a horse and (2) Answering correctly on questions.Therefore because a case was in 1949 then the authority cannot be relied on but the Crown can then rely on a bad character of a 1968 act. it does not seem fair to me.Your final thought. Thanks.Case1:
MIKH Dina, on the 4th day of September 2014, Dishonestly and intending thereby to make a gain for himself or another or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss,Made a representation to a Test Centre Administrator which was and which he knew was or might be untrue and misleading, namely that he was Sam Mambo attending to sit the Health and Safety test, In breach of section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.Case 2:
R. v. Clucas. [1949].
In that case, Lord Goddard of court of Appeal, held that ‘’ a person who, by false pretences induced a bookmaker to bet with him, and who thus, received money from the bookmaker on winning the bet was not guilty of obtaining the money by false pretences.The reason given for the decision was that the false pretence was merely a contributory cause, the effective cause of the money being received is being the fact that the chosen horse won the race.’’
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

I see you have not yet rated my previous post so I would be grateful if you could do that now.

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
I will do right after this question.You said at 15/06/2017 01:17 that
''The reasoning within the cases is what gives rise to principles.''
So, What do you think of the Clucas 1949 reasoning in relation to S.2 of Fraud act 2006?
Moreso, that you said at around 11am that ''Broadly the fraud act hasn't changed all that much."And thanks in advance.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 5 months ago.

.

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
You sent a blank response