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: 70109
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: 9 days ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 9 days ago.

Is this for an assignment?

Customer: replied 9 days ago.
No
Expert:  Jo C. replied 9 days ago.

What is the context?

Customer: replied 9 days 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 9 days ago.

Are you charged with these offences?

We don't use the Larceny Act anymore.

Customer: replied 9 days 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My brother then want to rely on a court of Appeal Authority under section 32(1) of Larceny Act 1916.(repealed in 1968)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 8 days 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 8 days 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 8 days ago.

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

That is right.

Customer: replied 8 days 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 8 days 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 8 days 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 8 days 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 8 days 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 8 days ago.
It was just a general question if Stare decisis has time limitation especially on cases with similar facts. .
Expert:  Jo C. replied 8 days ago.

There are no limitations upon law.

But some law falls into disuse.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 8 days ago.

At least Acts of Parliament do not have statutes.

Customer: replied 8 days 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 8 days ago.

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

Customer: replied 8 days 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 8 days ago.

.

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
You sent a blank response

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
< Previous | Next >
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
  • A quick response, a succinct and helpful answer in simple English. I believe I can now confront the counter party with confidence -- worth the 30 bucks! Rick
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C.
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP
  • I couldn't be more satisfied! This is the site I will always come to when I need a second opinion. Justin
  • Just let me say that this encounter has been entirely professional and most helpful. I liked that I could ask additional questions and get answered in a very short turn around. Esther
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Jo C.

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    31432
    Over 5 years in practice
< Previous | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.co.uk/uploads/EM/emus/2015-7-7_192327_bigstockportraitofconfidentfemale.64x64.jpg Jo C.'s Avatar

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    31432
    Over 5 years in practice
  • http://ww2.justanswer.co.uk/uploads/BE/benjones/2015-12-1_0437_ennew.64x64.jpg Ben Jones's Avatar

    Ben Jones

    UK Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    13955
    Qualified Solicitor - Please start your question with 'For Ben Jones'
  • http://ww2.justanswer.co.uk/uploads/BU/Buachaill/2012-5-25_211156_barrister5.64x64.jpg Buachaill's Avatar

    Buachaill

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    2251
    Barrister 17 years experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.co.uk/uploads/JO/jojobi/2013-3-19_0265_maxlowryphoto.64x64.jpg Max Lowry's Avatar

    Max Lowry

    Advocate

    Satisfied Customers:

    894
    LLB, 10 years post qualification experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.co.uk/uploads/UK/UKLawyer/2012-4-12_9849_F2.64x64.jpg UK_Lawyer's Avatar

    UK_Lawyer

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    758
    I am a qualified solicitor and an expert in UK law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.co.uk/uploads/KA/Kasare/kasare.64x64.jpg Kasare's Avatar

    Kasare

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    402
    Solicitor, 10 yrs plus experience in civil litigation, employment and family law
  • http://ww2.justanswer.co.uk/uploads/OS/osh/2015-7-7_19268_gettyimagesb.64x64.jpg Joshua's Avatar

    Joshua

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    8199
    LL.B (Hons), Higher Prof. Dip. Law & Practice
 
 
 

Related Law Questions