Figure 7.15: deductive argument and two opposing inductive arguments As can be seen, point 6 of the defence thesis in Figure 7.15, above, relates to the issue of intention, arguing that Anna did not have the necessary mens rea. Theft can only be proved if both the actus reus and the mens rea are present. The prosecution case argues that in fact Anna was seen instore taking the book by an eye witness and stopped and found with the book outside the store. This, argues the prosecution, demonstrates intention to permanently deprive (see points 1, 2 and 3 of the inductive thesis of the prosecution). The defence counter this argument by pointing to personal circumstances that negate intention (see points 2–6 of the prosecution thesis). As you are able to comprehend how the same information can give rise to differing arguments based upon evidence unknown to the other party at the time, you can appreciate the importance of careful construction of argument. In addition, of course, one needs to add the legal basis for the arguments found in the authority of decided cases. This will be considered later in the chapter. It is always a good idea to try and

DOI link for Figure 7.15: deductive argument and two opposing inductive arguments As can be seen, point 6 of the defence thesis in Figure 7.15, above, relates to the issue of intention, arguing that Anna did not have the necessary mens rea. Theft can only be proved if both the actus reus and the mens rea are present. The prosecution case argues that in fact Anna was seen instore taking the book by an eye witness and stopped and found with the book outside the store. This, argues the prosecution, demonstrates intention to permanently deprive (see points 1, 2 and 3 of the inductive thesis of the prosecution). The defence counter this argument by pointing to personal circumstances that negate intention (see points 2–6 of the prosecution thesis). As you are able to comprehend how the same information can give rise to differing arguments based upon evidence unknown to the other party at the time, you can appreciate the importance of careful construction of argument. In addition, of course, one needs to add the legal basis for the arguments found in the authority of decided cases. This will be considered later in the chapter. It is always a good idea to try and

Figure 7.15: deductive argument and two opposing inductive arguments As can be seen, point 6 of the defence thesis in Figure 7.15, above, relates to the issue of intention, arguing that Anna did not have the necessary mens rea. Theft can only be proved if both the actus reus and the mens rea are present. The prosecution case argues that in fact Anna was seen instore taking the book by an eye witness and stopped and found with the book outside the store. This, argues the prosecution, demonstrates intention to permanently deprive (see points 1, 2 and 3 of the inductive thesis of the prosecution). The defence counter this argument by pointing to personal circumstances that negate intention (see points 2–6 of the prosecution thesis). As you are able to comprehend how the same information can give rise to differing arguments based upon evidence unknown to the other party at the time, you can appreciate the importance of careful construction of argument. In addition, of course, one needs to add the legal basis for the arguments found in the authority of decided cases. This will be considered later in the chapter. It is always a good idea to try and