Take your stinking hooves off me, you damned dirty pony! · 7:32pm Mar 26th, 2014
WARNING. ENGLISH LAW BELOW
(and season 4 spoilers. That too.)
Rarity is a dressmaker, attending a fashion show in a city. S is another dressmaker, attending the same show. Suri visits Rarity backstage and compliments her the types of fabrics she has used, then notes that said fabrics would be ‘perfect’ for the ‘accents’ on her own line of outfits. Rarity agrees, and gives her a role of spare fabrics to make said ‘accents’ with. Suri then goes to use this role to make an entirely new line of dresses, passing off the fabric as her own. Rarity confronts Suri over this, claiming Suri stole her fabrics. Suri denies this, saying that it was not theft as they were given to her and that it’s a ‘it's everypony for herself in the big city, m'kay’
Discuss, if any, the criminal liability of Suri.
The issue in question is the possible criminal liability of Suri for the offence of theft. The definition of theft is given in section 1 of the Theft act, 1968, which states that a person commits theft if they ‘dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention to permanently deprive them of it.’
As a ‘person’ is legally defined as a ‘reasonable creature in being’. While this usually applies to humans, the fact that said characters in the example are both sapient and sentient, this definition would still cover them, meaning that they are covered by the wording of the theft act, albeit only if English law applied to them, something which this example assumes is the case.
The first part of the actus reus that must be established, is that there has been an appropriation. Appropriation is covered by section 3 (1) of the Theft act 1968, which states that any assumption of any of the rights of an owner amount to an appropriation, as was seen in the case of Morris (1983), where the defendant swapped the labels on food tins. The court ruled that this was an appropriation as the right to do so was a right that only the owner could wield. Along with this, the cases of Lawrence (1972) and Hinks (2000) shows us that an appropriation can occur even if the owner consents, or if the property is given as a gift.
The next part of the actus reus that must be established, is that the item stolen is ‘property’. Property is covered by section 4 (1) of the theft act, which states that property includes money and all other property, real (land) or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
The final part of the actus reus that must be proved is that said property was ‘belonging to another’. Belonging to another is covered by section 5 of the theft act, which states property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having or proprietary right or interest. Section 5(3) states that when money has been given to be used for a certain situation, using it for another usage can be theft, as it was in the case of Wain (1995), who raised money for a charity and then spent it on himself.
The first part of the mens rea that much be established is that Suri was dishonest. Dishonesty is covered by section 2 of the theft act, which instead of stating when one is dishonest, merely presents three situations in which one is not dishonest. The first is in which believes that he has a legal right to deprive them of the goods, as was seen in the case of Holden (1991) where the defendant believed he had the legal right to take tires from his workstation.
The second situation is where he would have had the consent of the owners had they known of the circumstances and the third situation is where the owner could not be trace by taking ‘reasonable steps’, as was seen in the case of Small (1988) in regards to an abandoned car.
This element of dishonesty is also tested from the ‘Ghosh test’, which is split into two elements, an objective test followed by a partly subjective one. The first half of the test asks ‘Would the defendant’s conduct be regarded as dishonest by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?’, while the second half of the test asks ‘Did D realise that his conduct would be regarded as dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people’.
Intention is covered by section 6(1) of the theft act, which states that when dealing with an intention to permanently deprive someone of the item, an intention to return a similar or identical piece of property will count as an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the original item, as was seen in the case of Velulmyl (1985), where the defendant took money from a safe and intended to replace it with an equal amount of different bank notes of equal value. Coupled with this, section 6 (1) states that borrowing property may amount to an intention to permanently deprive but only if it is equivalent to an outright taking or disposal or if the property is returned in a changed state where all its ‘goodness, virtue or practical value’ has gone, as was seen in the case of Lloyd (1985).
In regards to the fabric, it can clearly be seen that Suri’s use of it amounts to an appropriation, it is clearly property, which belongs to another and Suri clearly has an intention to permanently deprive Rarity of the fabric.
In regards to whether Suri has been dishonest or not, it can be argued that while both a reasonable (and honest) person, and Suri would see the conduct as dishonest/see that others would see it as dishonest, (as shown by the ‘it's everypony for herself in the big city, m'kay’ comment), that it is possible that Suri believed that the owner would have consented to the use of the fabrics for this purpose. However, due to her comments to Rarity afterwards, it can be safely stated that this is not the case.
Because of this, Suri is liable for the criminal offence of theft.
So, Suri is a thief
.
derpicdn.net/img/view/2012/12/30/197157__safe_fluttershy_animated_spike_image+macro_reaction+image_winona_golden+oaks+library_spike+at+your+service_library.gif