Moots will be drawn by ballot (this means that moot may vary from round to round).
Moot One - R v Tom.
Tom is visiting his friend Sundeep at Strode's College. On the way to College he goes past Budgens and notices that they have a bundle of newspapers outside. He takes one of the newspapers and then walks into the shop intending to pay. While in the shop, he notices that the till has been left open and that nobody is within sight. He nips behind the counter intent on seeing if there is enough money in the till to make a theft worth the risk, only to hear the shopkeeper shout: "What you doing?". Tom panics and decides to make a run for it. In doing so, Mary (a customer) holds the door of the shop closed so that he cannot escape. He forcibly pulls at the handle of the door, breaking the hold of Mary causing her to fall and injure/bruise her arm.
Tom was found guilty in the Crown Court of theft of a newspaper. He was also found guilty of burglary (in relation to the money in the till) and robbery (in connection with the newspaper) - being sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
He appeals on three grounds:
(1) A "duplicity of charges" in relation to theft and robbery - which he maintains must be inconsistent with common law and the purpose behind the Theft Act 1968.
(2) When he appropriated the newspaper he intended to pay for it and went into the shop with that intent. It follows that, as a matter of law, he cannot be guilty of theft because the actus reus and mens rea do not coincide.
(3) The juries decision that he was guilty of acting dishonestly by attempting to steal from the till was irrational since he was simply looking into the till. Indeed, he was simply "weighing up the value and the odds" and that in itself cannot fulfill the necessary mens rea - since "thinking about the possibility of stealing money is not the same as intent ". Logically, such thought cannot be considered to be dishonest on the basis of the Ghosh test.
.........................................................................
Moot Two - R v Mary and Sundeep.
Mary is a student at Strode's College. She is a Laws student and often uses the classroom at lunchtimes for study purposes. One day she is working alone in the classroom and decides to enter Dr Jepson's office (the door to the office is left open, with a sign displayed on the door saying "private") so that she can telephone her penfriend who lives in Australia. However, the number is engaged and a voice message is given - which Mary listens to and then hangs up.
Dr Jepson has a video recording of her activities and, upon seeing it, insists that Mary is prosecuted for burglary. Mary's friend, Sundeep, is furious with Dr Jepson and after getting 'high' on cannabis decides to spray racially offensive words on Dr Jepson's caravennette (which he regularly sleeps in when he works late at College) and to break inside to pour red paint on the vehicle interior. Sundeep first smashes the glass roof window and pours paint through the window into the caravannette.
Sundeep hears a noise and runs away from the scene of the 'crime' only to be confronted by a journalist who tries to take his photo. Sundeep pushes the journalist to the floor - grabbing the camera and ripping out the film - throwing the exposed film and the camera to the floor. All of this is caught on CCTV and the police arrest Sundeep.
Mary was charged with burglary and found guilty in the Crown Court after the trial judge advised the jury:
"First you must determine whether Mary entered the Office of Dr Jepson as a 'trespasser' - i.e. entry without relevant authority. You must then determine if you, as reasonable people, consider that going into a persons 'private office' and using their telephone is dishonest. If you consider that it is, you can only find Mary guilty if you are satisfied that she recognised what she did was wrong by those standards."
Mary appeals on the following grounds:
(1) The Ghosh test was not applicable in the way it was formed, since she did not realise that there would be any charge for an incomplete telephone call. In all the circumstances, she did not consider she was being dishonest or stealing property.
Sundeep was also charged and found guilty of burglary and robbery.
He appeals, to the Court of Appeal, on the basis that:
(1) On a literal interpretation of s.9 of the Theft Act 1968 he did not fulfil the actus reus of burglary.
(2) He also maintains, as he did at the trial, that he did not have the actus reus/mens rea for theft and therefore robbery under s.8 of the Theft Act 1968.
.........................................................................
Moot Three - R v Tamsin
Tamsin receives a personal invitation to a store's boutique opening night. She goes into the store and sees a dress that has a hanger with a £50 discount sign. She tries on the dress and it does not fit, but it does match her green hair. However, she then tries on another dress that fits perfectly - but it is not in the sale. So, she switches hangers intending to claim the £50 discount.
A few minutes later, she is walking around the store and notices (behind a small shop counter) a handbag. She nips behind the counter and takes a purse out of the handbag. As she is making her way towards the exit, she sees a CCTV camera and decides that she may have been filmed. So, she ditches both items and proceeds to walk out of the store. On leaving the store, she is approached by a store detective. She panics and hits the store detective over the head, with her umbrella, and escapes. She is later arrested by the police and charged with burglary and robbery on the basis of the CCTV evidence.
At the Crown Court, the jury views the CCTV evidence and Tamsin is found guilty of burglary and robbery. She appeals on the following grounds.
(1) Tamsin argues that to commit burglary - she needs to trespass. Since she was invited to the store, she was not a trespasser. Thus, it follows that she cannot be found guilty of burglary.
(2) She also claims that she did not have the necessary mens rea for theft, burglary, or robbery.
(3) She further argues, since she decided not to steal anything she cannot - in the circumstances - be found guilty of robbery.
..........................................................................
Moot Four - R v Charlotte
Charlotte is a student at StrodeÕs College who is always stretching the disciplinary boundaries. She thinks she is in love with Colin.
They both have mock Laws examinations and Charlotte is worried that Colin will fail the examinations and be asked to leave college. Colin decides not to bother with the exams and goes for a two-week vacation in Australia during the revision period. Charlotte is worried and on hearing that the examination paper is stored in Dr JepsonÕs Office she decides to enter and scan a copy of the examination paper to Colin in Australia.
She waits until it is lunchtime and the Laws Hut is empty and then sneaks into Dr JepsonÕs office (past a sign that says ÒPrivate Ð no entry to studentsÓ) and she finds the examination paper Ð using the scanner to email a copy to Colin in Australia. She then leaves Ð unaware that her activity has been recorded on the CCTV.
She is then interviewed about the event and realises that her best chance of getting out of trouble is to sneak into the security room, which is marked ÒSecurity Personnel OnlyÓ on the first floor and steal the videotape. At around 9pm that evening, Charlotte is caught in the corridor, by a security guard, looking through the window of the security room. The police are then called and she is charged with theft of an examination paper and two counts of burglary (one in relation to Dr JepsonÕs office and the email to Australia, the second in relation to the video tape). At the trial, the jury convicted Charlotte of all three offences after the judge used the following words in relation to the issue of dishonesty:
ÒFirst, you must determine whether Charlotte entered the office of Dr Jepson as a ÒtrespasserÓ- i.e. entry without relevant authority. You must then determine if you, as reasonable people, consider that going into a personÕs private office and using their computer to email an unauthorised copy of an examination paper to Australia is dishonest. If you consider that it is, you can only find Charlotte guilty if you are satisfied that she recognised what she did was wrong by those standards.Ó
Charlotte appeals on the following grounds: