Abstract

This research “Aggravated Theft” A Comparative study under the Cameroonian Penal Code and the English Theft Act 1968 is intended to compare and analyze the offence of aggravated theft under the Cameroonian penal code and the English theft act 1968.

Thus it lays emphasis on the ingredients of theft, the factors that aggravate theft and the punishment that befall anyone who commits the offence of theft.

However, the theft act 1968 and the Cameroon penal code were both passed as a tool to protect the individual’s legal rights and property from the hands of the violators.

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Stealing from others has been considered a reprehensive crime and nearly every jurisdiction has some sort of sanction against it. It can be committed in a variety of different ways.

In our jurisdiction, the law is to be found in the theft act 1968. The theft act was an attempt to write a new and simple code for the law of theft and related offences.

It made sweeping and fundamental changes to the law that had developed prior to 1968. The act was based on the eighth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, theft and related offences.

Before 1969, the law about the dishonest acquisition of the property of another was contained in the larceny act 1916, which was a codification of a number of common law rules with certain piecemeal statutory amendments mostly occurring in the Victoria era.

The principal offence was larceny but it was a highly technical crime, too narrowly defined to cover certain quite common cases of dishonesty. The basis of the offence was that the accused should take and carry away property in the possession of another.

It therefore failed to cover an accused person who dishonestly misappropriated that of which he already had lawful possession and the offences of embezzlement and fraudulent conversion had to be invented to fill some of this gap.

Moreover, the law’s insistence that the crime was a wrong against possession, not against ownership, meant that the law was complicated by the need to reflect the intricacies of the English law of possession.

Therefore they decided to replace larceny, embezzlement and fraudulent conversion with a single offence called theft .the important element of them all is undoubtedly the dishonest appropriation of another’s property that is, the treating of “Tuum” as “meum” as seen in the case of Lawrence v commissioner of the metropolis where an Italian student, who spoke very little English, arrived at victoria station and showed an address to Lawrence who was a taxi driver. The student got out a $1 note and offered it to the driver.

Lawrence the driver said it was not enough and so the student opened his wallet and allowed Lawrence to help himself to another $6. Lawrence put forward the argument that he had not appropriated the money, as the student had consented to him taking it. Both the court and of appeal and the House of Lords rejected this argument and held that there was appropriation in this situation.

Thus by so doing, the law will concentrate on what the accused dishonestly achieved or attempted to achieve. This would avoid multiplicity of offences. Thus this is how theft came about under the jurisdiction of England or Britain.

As concerns Cameroon, after the colonization, Britain became one of the colonial masters and by so doing implemented their culture and regulations in Cameroon and that is how Cameroon began to practice their system such as their legal system and since theft was a crime in Britain it automatically became a crime in Cameroon.

Furthermore, the offence of theft is governed by section 318 of the Penal code which states that “whoever causes loss to another; by theft that is by removing his property; shall be punished with imprisonment as from 100,000 to 1000000 francs.

As time went on, certain aggravated circumstances such as; theft committed with the use of force, bearing weapons, by climbing in, breaking in, or with the use of false key or with a motor vehicle, led to the increase of punishment, which led to the offence aggravated theft.

That is the capital nature of the offence theft as seen in section 320 of the Penal Code, which states that “the penalty provided for in s.318 shall be doubled if the theft was committed:

1. With the use of force
2. Bearing weapons; or
3. By breaking in, climbing in, or by the use of a false key or
4. With a motor vehicle.

1.2 Statement Of The Research Problem

Theft is an offence that violates an individual’s property and this has given a concurrent need for an individual’s property to be protected.

Due to this, there has been the need for individual co-operation together with that of the state to protect this property. It was deemed necessary for the Cameroonian Penal Code and the English Theft Act 1968 to be adopted or passed as a result of the Criminal Law Revision Committee to see that anyone who commits the offence (theft) be punished.

Even though the Cameroonian Penal Code and the English Theft 1968 were adopted to deal with this offence, the question to ask is; to what extent is the offence dealt with in each of the jurisdictions.

This is seen in the case of Mathias Tantoh Nasty v The People and also R v Turner where turner left his car at a garage for repairs. It was agreed that he will pay for the repairs when he collected the car after the repairs had been completed.

When the repairs had almost finished, the garage left the car packed on the roadway beside their premises. Turner used a spare key to take the car during the night without paying for the repairs.

The court of appeal held that the garage was in possession or control of the car and so the turner could be guilty of stealing his own car. But whereas in the previous judgment, the judges had directed the jury to ignore any question of lien.

1.3 Research Questions

For a better understanding of the research topic, it is very necessary for certain questions to be asked and for answers to be provided. Such as follows:

1. How is Aggravated Theft punishable under the Cameroonian Penal Code and the English Theft Act 1968?
2. What are the ingredients of Theft under the Cameroonian Penal Code and the English Theft Act 1968?
3. What are the factors that aggravate theft under the Cameroonian Penal Code and the English Theft Act 1968?
4. What is the procedure for the trial and how long does the trial cases of aggravated theft take in Cameroon and in Britain or England?
5. Are they any mitigating circumstances that can lead to the reduction of the punishment in Cameroon and in England or Britain?

Read more: Child Trafficking Under The Cameroon Penal Code