6 - Property offences Flashcards
Theft
s1(1) theft act 1968
“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”
actus reus of theft
s3 – Appropriates – actus reus
s4 – Property – actus reus
s5 – Belonging to Another – actus reus
Appropriation
actus reus of theft
an assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation”
The rights of an owner including, selling, destroying, lending, hiring it out
Morris 1983
appropriatinon - actus reus of theft
D switched price labels so that his product had a lower price. He put it into his basket but not yet gone through the checkout
Held that by swapping labels and putting it into basket this was assumption enough
consent to appropration
appropriation
Doesn’t state that the appropriation has to be without the consent of the owner
Later assumption of rights
theft
S3(1) – it is also appropriation when the D acquires the property without stealing it, but then later tries to keep or deal with the property as the owner
Property
theft
s4(1) - what can be stolen
* money
* real property
* personal property
* things in action
* other intangible thing s
things that cant be -
* land
* mushrooms, flowers,fruits or foliage growung wild unless picked for financial gain
* wild cratures, unless tamed, in capitivity or possesion of another
Property
theft
s4(1) - what can be stolen
* money
* real property
* personal property
* things in action
* other intangible thing s
things that cant be -
* land
* mushrooms, flowers,fruits or foliage growung wild unless picked for financial gain
* wild cratures, unless tamed, in capitivity or possesion of another
Real property
property (theft)
S4 - This is the legal term for land and buildings
These can only be stolen in the following circumstances:
* A trustee takes land in breach of his duties as a trustee
* Someone not in possession of the land severs anything forming part of the land from the land
Ie. Dismantles a wall to use the bricks somewhere else
A tenant takes a fixture or structure from the land let to him
things in action
property (theft)
This is a right which can be enforced against another person by an action in law.
bank accounts
copyrights
other intangible property
property (theft)
Rights which have no physical presence but can still be stolen
EG. A patent
things that cannot be stoled (electricity)
electtricity cannot be stolen as it is a seperate offence
s11 Theft Act 1968 - of dishonestly using electricity without due authority
Belonging to another
theft
S5 (1) - Defines having possession or control of the property or any proprietary interest in it is sufficient to be belonging to another
Possesion or control
theft (belonging to another)
Normally the owner however:
Someone who hires a car has possession and control but doesn’t own it
The possession or control doesn’t have to be lawful
Turner 1971
possesion or control
Turner left his car for repair at the garage and agreed to pay for the repairs when he collected it. Turner used a spare key and took back his car without payment. On appeal he was convicted of stealing his own car because at the time the garage had possession and control of it.
Property Received Under an Obligation
s5(3) This is usually where money is handed over to the D on the basis that he will keep it for the owner or use it in a particular way
There is a legal obligation to retain the money and deal with it in the particular manner agreed.
Hall 1972
under obligation (theft)
Travel agent who received deposits but never bought any tickets for clients and was unable to return the money. The money was put into the general business account and because of that D couldn’t be convicted of theft as he wasn’t obliged to deal with the money in any particular way.
Property recieved by mistake
theft
s5(4) - property received by mistake remains the property of another if there is a legal obligation to return it, refusing to retun it amounts to intetnion to permenantly deprive
Mens rea for theft
dishonesty
intention to deprive
Dishonesty
mens rea theft
For the mens rea of the offence, it has to be done dishonestly
That doesn’t mean the motivation – the D doesn’t have to have gained anything to still be liable
E.g taken and destroyed someone’s bag/throws it away
exceptions to dishonesty
Theft Act 1968 s2 – gives 3 exceptions where it isn’t dishonest
1) Has in law the right to deprive the other of it
2) He would have the others consent if the other knew
3)The person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
dishonesty - willing to pay
D takes property and may say he is willing to pay or leaves money to pay for the property
D may still be dishonest and therefore liable for theft
The ghosh test 1982
Two part test to define ‘dishonestly’ -
1) Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? (objective)
2) Did the D realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards? (subjective)
Ghosh 1982
C of A set out dishonest
Locum doctor claiming fees for operations he hadn’t carried out.
He said he wasn’t dishonest as he was owed the money anyway for consultation fees.
C of A set out an objective and subjective element
Civil law test for dishonesty
preffered by the supreme court over ghosh
1) decide what the individual knew about what they were doing and what the surrounding cricusmtances were and then,
2) decide whether the ordinary decent member of society would say wat wasdone was dishonest, and if so the behaviour doesnt become dishonest simply because the D has different or lower standards
Intention to permenantly deprive
mens rea (theft)
not specificially defned, widely interpretated
under s6(2) - there is intention to permenantly eprive if teh owner of the thing even if it is returned but some of its value was dimisnished, such as -
* sellling a persons property back to them
* using teh charge from the V’s battery/eatig their food
* retruning a concert/gig/ticket after its been used
D destroys property this also = intention to permanently deprive
This is classed as theft and criminal damage.
DPP V Lavender 1994
D took doors from a council property and used them to replace doors in his girlfriends council flat. The doors were still in possession by the Council but had been transferred without permission from one council property to another.
Held that by transferring the doors his was treating them as his own regardless of the rights of the council. So still liable
Lawrence 1971
Italian student who spoken little English took a taxi.
It should have cost 50p. The student offered him £1 and when the D said it wasn’t enough the student opened his wallet and allowed D to help himself.
Lawrence that the money hadn’t been appropriated because of the consent.
This was reject and held to still be appropriation.
borrowing or lending
S6 – Borrowing is not theft unless it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal
However after AG no1 and no2 1979 it was decided that if D had conditional intent (ie he intended on stealing it if there was anything worth stealing) then the D could be charged with attempting to steal
Easom 1971
borrowing or lending
D picked up a handbag at the cinema, rummaged through it and replaced it without having taken anything.
CA quashed his conviction for theft holding that even though he may have a conditional intention to deprive it wasn’t enough because he hasn’t actually deprived the owner of anything.
Intention to treat things as his own
If the D treats things as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights then the D has the intention to permanently deprive.
Robbery
s(8) of the theft act
“A person is Guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person, or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subject to the force.”
actus reus of robbery
Theft – there has to be a completed theft – no theft = no robbery!
Force or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of force – immediately before or at the time of theft in order to steal
compelte theft
robbery
here has to be a completed theft for robbery to have been committed
All elements of theft have to be proved first – if one is missing there is no theft and therefore no robbery
Force
robbery
- There must be force or threat of force
- Force has to be used immediately before or at the time of stealing
- The force must be used in order to steal – if it is not used for this purpose then it won’t be robbery
Mens rea for robbery
Prove that the D has the mens rea for theft itself
Intended to use force to steal
Vinall 2011
Force has to be used immediately before or at the time of stealing
D’s punched V causing him to fall off his bike
D said, “don’t try anything stupi I’ve got a knife”
V fled on foot and D gave chase but then went back got the bike and walked off with it
However they abandoned the bike up the road
On appeal held not to be robbery – as it was an unsafe conviction in that the force used couldn’t necessarily be linked to the intention of theft
Dawson and James 1976
There must be force or threat of force
The amount of force can be small
D pushed the V who lost his balance, allowing another D to take his wallet. Guilty of robbery
