Common Law: Larceny V. Llich

Contemporary common law approaches as identified by Fletcher recognises two elements of harm and intent; the ‘unlicensed acquisition of another’s property’ and intent to cause the harm. In doing so the law has covered a wider range of acts not just those which result is a measurable loss. As per the case of Llich;

“Larceny is committed by a person who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent at the time of such taking permanently to deprive the owner thereof ...”

In basic terms the Actus Reus elements include; tangible property capable of being stolen, belonging to another, asported or carried away without owner’s consent.

Inevitably as people possessions changed in nature overtime so did the law. Firstly based originally off the decision in Carriers case now written in s125 of the Crimes Act someone given property temporarily and fails to return the possession is guilty of larceny by Bailee. Larceny by a servant or employee as per s 156 makes it possible for a worker to steal from their boss, this offence has a high conviction rate and holds a higher sentence than plain larceny. Finally embezzlement requires an employee to fraudulently take property which was meant for their employee as contained in s 125. These crimes very much overlap and hence it seem questionable based on conviction rates whether additional offenses are necessary. Douglas N. Husak explores the way in which this gives courts ability to charge defendants with multiple offenses potentially providing them with far too much power. Additionally it has been suggested that such breach of trust by workers and often are a result of careless victims, furthermore it they would be adequately compensated through damages through civil

It must be noted that NSW continues to maintain original larceny offences in relation to wider property offences. According to Section 1 of the Act the “basic definition of theft” is; “(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. Although concise in words the offence is far narrow and hence common law has paved the way for issues of complexity. In conjunction with vague definitions causing issues of consistency between theft and