c- introduction to offences against property (theft, robbery, burglary, fraud and criminal damage)

Question 1

Theft Act 1968- theft sections 1-6

Answer 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’

Question 2

Theft section 3- appropriation

Answer 2

Actus reus. Means using or assuming any owners rights’ of something that does not belong to you. Also covers situations where the d has come across property innocently and later assumes any of the rights of the owner.

Question 3

R v Morris (1983)- price, labelled goods

Answer 3

D switched the price on labels of good in a supermarket in order to pay a lower price. He had taken the goods to the checkout and was arrested. Convicted of theft and appealed but his conviction was upheld. Court held it does not have to be an assumption of all the rights of the owner, assumption of any of rights of owner will suffice.

Question 4

R v Gomez (1993)- electrical shop, stolen cheques

Answer 4

D was an assistant manager in eletrical shop, was asked to supply goods to the value of £17,000 to an acquaintance in exchange for 2 cheques, that he knew were stolen D persuaded the shop manager that the cheques were authentic even though they have no value. D was convicted of theft and on appeal HoL held appropriation had taken place even though the manager consented to supplying the goods. An appropriation does not need absence of consent.

Question 5

Theft section 4- property

Answer 5

Actus reus. Theft act defines property as ‘money and all other property, real or personal including things in action and other intangible property’. Personal- moveable items like phones, jewellery. Real- land or property. Things in actions- debts, credit balance. Other intangible property- gas or a patent. Things that cant be stolen include flowers, fruit, foliage, that grow in the wild. When property is received by mistake, there is a legal obligation to give back the property.

Question 6

Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) (1985)- salary overpaid

Answer 6

D had salary paid into her account. Her employer by mistake had overpaid her to the value of £74.74. She was charged with theft but acquitted by the jury. In this type of case there is an obligation to make restoration, if there is a dishonest intention not to make restoration, the case would be theft.

Question 7

Theft section 5- belonging to another

Answer 7

Given wide meaning, property regarded as person having possession or control of it, having it in any proprietary right or interest.

Question 8

R v Turner (No 2) (1971)- car, garage, parked

Answer 8

D left his car at a garage to be repaired and agreed to pay for the repairs on completion. The garage owner parked the car outside on the road overnight, when repairs were complete and the d took is car using a spare set of keys. He had not paid for the repairs and not gained the consent of the garage owner to remove it. The d was convicted of theft. Its possible to be convicted of stealing property that they own, if someone else has possession or control of it.

Question 9

Mens rea of theft

Answer 9

D has to be acting dishonestly, motive is irrelevant.

Question 10

Theft section 2- what is not dishonesty

Answer 10

The d believed that they had a right to deprive the other of the property, d believed the other would have consented if they knew of the appropriation and the circumstances and the person to whom the property belongs cannot be traced by taking reasonable steps.

Question 11

Theft section 2- dishonesty

Answer 11

Subjective test. D has to have genuine belief to be considered not dishonest, even if its unreasonable. R v Ghosh (1982) provided guidelines. The Ghosh test attempts to answer: were the actions of dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people and if so did the d know it was dishonest by those standards. This test has been criticised as being too complicated and that there is no universal standard of honesty.

Question 12

R v Ghosh (1982)- temp doctor, claim fees

Answer 12

D was a temp doctor at a hospital and had to claim his own fees. He claimed for an operation that had no taken place. He claimed he was not dishonest because he was owed equivalent to those fees for consultations with patients. He was found to be dishonest and appealed. CoA upheld his conviction and established a test. Ghosh test starts with objective element, followed by a subjective element,

Question 13

Theft section 6- intention to permanently deprive

Answer 13

Forms part of mens rea. Theft act gives 2 examples of when a d will be considered to have intention to permanently to deprive. Where the d intends to treat the property as their own to dispose of without regard to the rights of the owner and where borrowing or lending is equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. Max 7 years imprisonment.

Question 14

R v Lavender (1994)- doors, council property

Answer 14

The d took off some doors from a council property, which was due to be demolished. He then fitted the doors in a property occupied by his gf. This was also council property. D was convicted of theft. Treating property as ur own regardless of ownership amounted to an intention to permanently deprive.

Question 15

R v Marshall (1999)- underground tickets, sold to others

Answer 15

D had obtained underground tickets from people leaving the underground and sold them on to others. London underground insisted that they had a right to expect that only the original purchaser would use the ticket. This right was disregarded by the d who was convicted of theft. Disregarding rights of the owners amounted to intent to permanently deprive.

Question 16

Robbery- section 8 of the Theft Act 1968

Answer 16

‘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 put or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected for force’- simple terms robbery is the use of force, or the threatening of force, to commit theft.

Question 17

R v Robinson (1977)- owed £7, dropped 5, struggle

Answer 17

Actus reus of robbery, all elements of theft must be present in robbery. The d was owed £7 from victims wife, he approached victim to demand money and threatened the victim. During a struggle, the victim dropped a 5 pound note. D took note and still claimed he was owed 2 pounds. D was convicted of robbery, but CoA reversed conviction as all of the elements of theft were not present. D was not dishonest because he believed he had a right to the money.

Question 18

R v Clouden (1987)- shopping bag, wrenched

Answer 18

Actus reus of robbery, force must be used, threat can be explicit or implied by gestures. V was carrying a shopping bag, which was wrenched from her hand by the d. The d was convicted of robbery. Jury decides on what amounts to force, amount of force can be small.

Question 19

Smith v Desmond (1965)- bakery, tied up

Answer 19

Actus reus of robbery, force can be directed at any person and not necessarily at the owner of the property. D were carrying out a robbery from a bakery, 2 men at the bakery were an engineer and a security guard, they were tied up and blindfolded. D then took £10,447 from the safe. HoL ruled d rightly convicted of robbery.

Question 20

R v Lockley (1995)- cans of beer, force on shop-assistant

Answer 20

Actus reus of robbery, must be a threat or use of force immediately before or at the time of stealing. Requirement has been challenged when there has been a delay between the threats and the theft or where theft has occurred before threat/use of force. D had stolen some cans of beer from an off-licence. He used force on the sop assistant who was trying to prevent him from leaving. D was convicted of robbery, his appealed based on the fact that the force was after stealing was dismissed, theft can be classed as a continuing act.

Question 21

Actus reus of robbery

Answer 21

All elements of theft must be present, force must be used, force can be directed at any person, force must be at the time or immediately before and it must be used in order to steal.

Question 22

Mens rea of robbery

Answer 22

Dishonesty and intention for theft and an intention of recklessness as to the use of force

Question 23

Burglary- section 9 of the Theft Act 1968

Answer 23

Provides 2 offences of burglary

Question 24

Section 9(1)(a) of burglary

Answer 24

A person is guilty of burglary if they enter any building or part of building as a trespasser with intent to steal or to inflict or attempt to inflict GBH or to do unlawful damage.

Question 25

Section 9(1)(b) of burglary

Answer 25

A person is guilty of burglary if, having entered any building or part of a building, they steal or inflict or attempt to inflict gbh.

Question 26

Burglary- entry

Answer 26

Actus reus will most the time, be obvious. Entry can also include just a part of the body.

Question 27

R v Ryan (1996)- enter building 2:30 am, stuck

Answer 27

D had tried to enter a building at 2:30 am but had got stuck. His head and one arm were through the window and the window was resting on his neck. When he was discovered, the fire service had to be called to release him. He was convicted of burglary and appealed on grounds that most of his body was outside. His conviction was upheld.

Entry.

Question 28

Burglary- a building or part of building

Answer 28

Building should be reasonably permanent, and includes outbuildings such as sheds, garages or greenhouses. A building may also include inhabited vehicles and vessels. Expands meaning to include caravans, canal barges and campervans, if they are being used as a dwelling (place of residence). A lawful visitor may become an unlawful visitor when entering a part of building with permission and then leaving to another where they are not permitted.

Question 29

R v Walkington (1979)- partly open till, no separation from counter and store

Answer 29

D had noticed that a partly open till had been left unattended in Debenhams store. He went behind counter and found till was still empty. He went to leave store but was stopped and arrested. He was convicted but appealed there was nothing to separate the counter from the rest of the store. He was not entering a prohibited part of the building. His conviction was upheld.

Lawful visitor becomes a trespasser when entering an unauthorised area such as behind a till.

A building or part of building.

Question 30

Burglary- as a trespasser

Answer 30

A person entering a building is not a trespasser, if the owner has given permission. Permission may be express or implied. For criminal law, a trespasser must have mens rea for trespass. D must know or be reckless as to whether they are entering a building without consent.

Question 31

R v Collins (1972)- open window, drunk, thought boyfriend

Answer 31

D had been drinking alcohol, on his way home he saw an open window. He climbed a ladder to look inside and saw a naked girl asleep. He climbed down the ladder and removed all of his clothes except his socks and climbed back up ladder. She awoke, and thinking it was her bf, she helped him inside and they had sex. D was convicted of burglary as prior to 2003, rape or intending to rape was included in def. The d appealed and his conviction was rejected. D honestly believe he had consent to enter the building, they cannot be a trespasser.

Trespasser.

Question 32

Mens rea of burglary

Answer 32

D must know or be reckless as to whether they are a trespasser. For s9(1)(a), d must have had an intention to commit one of the offences listed at the time of entering the building. For s9(1)(b), d must have mens rea for theft or gbh.

Question 33

Sentence for burglary

Answer 33

Max for burglary of a dwelling is 14 years imprisonment.

Question 34

Fraud by false representation- section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006

Answer 34

Person is in breach of this section if they dishonestly make a false representation, intend by making the representation, to make a gain for themselves or another, or intent to cause a loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading, person making it knows that it is, or might be untrue or misleading. Representation can be submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications.

Question 35

Actus reus of fraud

Answer 35

Making the false representation, may be made through words or conduct. May be explicit or implied.

Question 36

R v Adams (1993)- hire car, lied in form

Answer 36

D had filled in a form to hire a car. the form asked 2 questions, whether he had any previous convictions for motoring offences and whether he had ever been disqualified from driving. D ticked NO in each case. D was found guilty as he had been disqualified 4 years ago. Representation may be false or misleading.

Question 37

R v Lambie (1981)- shopping, credit card, over limit

Answer 37

D went shopping and paid for goods using her credit card, paid for goods knowing that she was over her credit card limit. D argued that it was nothing to do with the shop that she was over her limit. D was found guilty. Act of using credit card implied, she was authorised to do so.

Question 38

Types of representation

Answer 38

Express (words or conduct) and implied (implied someone will pay for goods, like getting in a taxi, booking a holiday or hotel room).
Representations as to fact and law.
Representations as to state of mind. (e.g borrowing money for wedding then spending it in a casino).
Representation as to a machine.

Question 39

Mens rea of fraud by false representation

Answer 39

Dishonesty, intention to make a gain or cause a loss to somebody else. As fraud is a conduct crime, it does not matter whether a gain or loss resulted. Knowledge that the misrepresentation is or might be untrue or misleading. 2 stage test Ghosh test is discussed in relation to theft, and is used to establish dishonesty.

Question 40

R v Jeff and Bassett (1966)- told necessary work done

Answer 40

D told a householder that they had carried out the necessary work to repair his roof and that they had done the work well. The d had not carried out any repairs at all. They were convicted as they had dishonestly misled the householder. All 3 elements of mens rea of fraud by false representation were established in this case.

Question 41

Criminal damage- section1 of the Criminal Damge Act 1971

Answer 41

Number of offences where property is destroyed or damaged. Property is defined in s10 of the act as ‘property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal’. Similar sections to the Theft Act concerning animals being damaged, excluding things growing on wild land, property must belong to another. Max sentence is 10 years imprisonment.

Question 42

Section 1 (1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 (basic offence)

Answer 42

Person without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or be reckless to.

Question 43

Actus reus of criminal damage

Answer 43

Damaging or destroying any property belonging to another. Jury decides whether or not property has been damaged and the extent of the damage. If the damage caused is temp and can be fixed, this will not prevent a conviction, cost and effort to restore will be taken into consideration. Permanent or temporary impairment can affect value and usefulnesness of property.

Question 44

Mens rea of criminal damage

Answer 44

Intention to cause damage or destroy property, rather than committing an act that caused damage. If d acted recklessly, courts apply a subjective test by asking did the d realise the risk and decide to take the risk.

Question 45

R v G and another (2003)- 11 and 12 boys, set fire to newspapers under wheelie bin, spread to buildings

Answer 45

D were 2 boys aged 11 and 12, they were camping out and during the night went into the back yard of a shop and set fire to some newspapers under a large wheelie bin. They left the yard but thought that because the fire was on concrete floor, it would go out by itself. Fire spread to the bin and then to other shop and buildings. Convicted under ss1 and 3 of the Criminal Damage Act. Boys appeal was dismissed by the CoA but HoL quashed conviction stating that the appropriate test should have been subjective. Overruled objective test in R v Caldwell (1982) in favour of subjective test from R v Cunningham (1957).

Question 46

Section 1 (2)- aggravated criminal damage

Answer 46

Damage can be to any property and involved endangering life by damage to the property. Actus reus is damaging or or destroying any property, mens rea is intention or recklessness related to this.

Question 47

R v Dudley (1989)- petrol bomb, house

Answer 47

D threw a petrol bomb at a house, the d was convicted for the aggravated offence. Actus reus and mens rea were established as he threw the petrol bomb and that he intended to endanger life by fire damage.

Question 48

Lawful excuse

Answer 48

2 lawful excuses could form a complete defence to a charge under s1 (1) and to a simple offence of arson. Would not apply to the aggravated offence under s1(2) or aggravated arson. Lawful excuses under s5:
-he believed person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to destruction/ damage to property in question had so consented or would have consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction/damage and circumstances
-he destroyed/damaged or threatened to do so in order to protect property belonging to himself or another

Question 49

Section 1(3)- arson

Answer 49

Destroying/damaging property by fire. Charge of arson may be brought alongside the basic or aggravated offences in ss1(1) or 1(2). Max sentence is life imprisonment. Actus reus is damage/destroying by fire. Mens rea is intention or recklessness as to damaging property belonging to another by fire. Also require mens rea element to endangering life.