Scenario:
A loans B $100 on condition B pays it back in 1 month.
B does not pay the debt back.
2 months go by, while B is in shower, A takes $100 from B wallet because A wants their money back.
a) Is this theft, if yes, why? Or does s73(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (honest belief) allow A to be innocent?
Thought of the Hall case (airline tickets) but not sure the principle it espouses relating to money is relevant in this circumstance.
b) Same scenario, but instead of taking money back after 2 months A takes money back after 3 weeks, is the answer any different? If so, why?
While s73(2)(a) honest belief is a subjective test, the court seems to narrow the definition of s73(2)(a) by applying an objective test over the top in that the taker must have a reasonable (subjective) belief for their 'honest belief'.
A loans B $100 on condition B pays it back in 1 month.
B does not pay the debt back.
2 months go by, while B is in shower, A takes $100 from B wallet because A wants their money back.
a) Is this theft, if yes, why? Or does s73(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (honest belief) allow A to be innocent?
Thought of the Hall case (airline tickets) but not sure the principle it espouses relating to money is relevant in this circumstance.
b) Same scenario, but instead of taking money back after 2 months A takes money back after 3 weeks, is the answer any different? If so, why?
While s73(2)(a) honest belief is a subjective test, the court seems to narrow the definition of s73(2)(a) by applying an objective test over the top in that the taker must have a reasonable (subjective) belief for their 'honest belief'.
