Criminal Attempts, Theft and Robbery

Question 1

What is a criminal attempt W14P1

Answer 1

It is defined in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 S.1(1):
A person is guilty if they do an act, which is more than preparatory to the commission of the offence, with the intention of committing an offence.

Question 2

What is more than preparatory W14P1 and P109

Answer 2

This means have they gone past the ‘point of no return’, where even if they change their mind it is no defence
Whether the defendant has ‘gone beyond that which is more than merely preparatory’ is a question for the jury.

In R V Gullefer (1987) the COA said it is when ‘the merely preparatory acts have come to an end and the defendant embarks upon the crime proper.’

Question 3

Case that shows more than merely preparatory - R V Jones (1990) W14P1 and P110

Answer 3

The defendant had bought some guns, shortened the barrel of one of them, put on a disguise and had gone to the place where his intended victim, F, dropped his daughter off for school.
As the girl left the car, the defendant jumped into the rear seat and told F to drive. At a certain point the defendant took a loaded sawn-off shotgun from a bag and pointed it at F and said: “You are not going to like this.”
F grabbed the gun and managed to throw it out of the window and escaped.
Held: he had gone beyond more than merely preparatory when he got into the car, pointed the gun at the victim with the intention to kill him.
He had done almost everything he could before committing the actual offence.

Question 4

R V Gullefer (1987) W14P1 and P109

Answer 4

The defendant bet on a dog in a greyhound race. When he saw that it was losing, he jumped onto the track and tried to distract the dogs by waving his arms.
He hoped that the stewards would declare “no race” whereupon gamblers would be entitled to have their money back and he would recover his £18 stake.
Held: This was not an attempt until he actually approached the bookmakers and tried to get his stake back.

He had several other acts before the theft. Asking for the money would have been more than preparatory, actually getting money would be theft.

Question 5

R V Geddes (1996) W14P1 and P109 and 110

Answer 5

The defendant was in the boys’ toilets in a school. He had no connection with the school and no right to be there. He had a rucksack with him.
He was challenged by a police officer and left, he left the bag behind. It contained a large kitchen knife, rope and a roll of masking tape. He was charged with attempted false imprisonment.
Held: These acts were merely preparatory as he had not yet tried to imprison a boy.

The COA said the questions to ask were whether they had tried execution and had they done an act that showed they were actually trying to commit the actual offence.

Question 6

Case which shows there was an attempt W14P1 and P110 but this is not on the card

Answer 6

In R V Tosti (1997), the defendant approached a house with the intent of committing burglary. He was carrying metal cutting equipment. He examined the lock on the door and handled the padlock attached to it but was prevented from actually removing the lock when he was caught.
Held: he was convicted because in handling the lock he had done an act which was trying to commit the offence.

P110 but this is not on the card as I do not think you need this much information for attempted offences as Tim did not include it but look anyway.

Question 7

What offences can you be and not be guilty of attempting W14P1

Answer 7

Can be of murder, theft robbery and burglary but cannot be for conspiracy or aiding and abetting which is assisting an offender.

Question 8

MR for attempted offences

Answer 8

Filler

Question 9

What is the MR for murder and what case showed this W14P1 and P112

Answer 9

The prosecution will need to prove that the D intended the offence itself, recklessness is not enough.
For attempted murder, only an intention to kill is sufficient MR.

R V Whybrow (1951), the defendant wired up his wife’s bath and caused her an electric shock. He was convicted of attempted murder. When he appealed the court up held his conviction but criticised the judge’s summing and stressed that only intention to kill was sufficient for the MR of attempted murder.

Question 10

MR and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 W14P1 and P112

Answer 10

The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 S.1(2) made it so that a defendant could be guilty of an attempt even though the full offence was impossible.

However, it was held that this did not make D guilty in Anderson V Ryan (1985), Ryan bought a VCR believing it to be stolen. Because it was not stolen she was not found guilty.

Question 11

What is the difference between legally and factually impossible W14P1

Answer 11

If it is legally impossible to commit an offence because they are not actually breaking the law when they think they are, they can not be liable for the offence.

If it is factually impossible to commit it because of facts outside of the defendants control, they are guilty of an attempted offence. This was shown in R V Shivpuri (1986), Shivpuri smuggled what he believed to be drugs into the UK and arranged to meet a drug dealer. It was later found that the substance was actually powdered cabbage. He was found guilty of attempting to import drugs as he clearly had the intent to commit that offence.
The court overruled R v Anderton and Ryan.

Question 12

Theft

Answer 12

Filler

Question 13

What is theft and which acts defines it and what is AR and what is MR W15P1

Answer 13

S.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.

The AR is the appropriation of property belonging to another. The MR is dishonest and intention to permanently deprive.

Question 14

What is appropriation and what act defines it W15P1 and P40

Answer 14

Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines appropriation. This is ‘assuming the rights of the owner’  
It is any action that you take that involves taking control of something.  This can include destroying it.
So for there to be theft the thief must do something which assumes (takes over) one of the owner’s rights.
The following card is a case that shows this.

Question 15

R V Morris (1983) W15P1 and P41

Answer 15

D switched the price labels of two items of the shelf in a supermarket. He had then put of the items, which now had the lower price on it, into a basket provided by the store for shoppers and taken the item to the checkout, but he had not gone through the checkout when he was arrested.
His conviction was upheld as the owner’s right to put a price label on the goods was a right that had been assumed.
This is a good decision as in most cases the defendant would not have assumed all the rights.

Question 16

AR appropriation with consent - Lawrence (1972) P42

Answer 16

An Italian student, who spoke very little English, arrived at Victoria Station and showed an address to Lawrence who was a taxi driver. The journey should have cost 50p but Lawrence told him it was expensive. The student got out a £1 note and offered it to the driver. Lawrence said it was not enough and so the student opened his wallet and allowed Lawrence to take another £6. Lawrence put forward the argument that he had not appropriated the money as the student had consented to him taking it. The court stated that there was appropriation in this situation.

Question 17

Davidge V Bunnett (1984) P46

Answer 17

D was given money by her flatmates to pay the gas bill but instead she used it to buy Christmas presents. There was a legal obligation to deal with the money in a particular way and she had not so she was guilty of theft.

Question 18

What is property W15P1

Answer 18

Property includes possessions, things on land, money (both real and in a bank account) and other intangible property like copyright and digital media.

Question 19

Oxford V Moss (1979) P43

Answer 19

D was a university who acquired a proof of an examination paper he was due to sit. It was accepted that D did not intend to permanently deprive the university of the piece on which the questions were printed, so he was charged of theft of confidential information such as the knowledge of the questions.
He was found not guilty as the confidential information contained in the paper did not amount to intangible property for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968.

Question 20

Low V Blease (1975) and what else does property not include W15P1 and Oxford Reference

Answer 20

The defendant made unauthorised calls on a landline.
It was held that electricity could not be stolen as it is not property within the meaning of section 4 of the Theft Act 1968.

Property does not include wild plants (unless picked for sale), wild animals, land.

Question 21

Property (money) W15P1

Answer 21

R V Velumyl (1989)

What if you take money from V but intend to return it later?
The defendant was a company director. He took money from the company safe and claimed that he intended to return it after the weekend.

If the exact notes and coins are returned there is no theft, otherwise it is theft of the specific notes and coins.

What is above is what was on the PowerPoint but can look at the case in the revision guide for more information on P49

Question 22

What does belonging to another mean and example of a case W15P1, week 15 ISP and P44

Answer 22

The definition is very wide in S.5(1) of the act. It means possession or control.
This does not mean ownership because it is possible to steal property from another that they do not own but have borrowed.

In R V Turner (1972), D left his car at a garage for repairs. It was agreed that he would pay for the repairs when he collected his car. D used a spare key to take the car during the night without paying for the repairs.

The COA held that the garage was in control of the car because as repairers they have the right to retain possession of the item being repaired until payment is made (a repairer’s lien). Therefore, D was guilty of stealing his own car.

Question 23

The men’s rea for dishonesty (common law) W15P1

Answer 23

In Ivey (2017), Ivey found a way to persuade the dealer in a casino to arrange the used cards a certain way. This meant that after a few hours playing he could guess what the next card was going to be, this allowed him to win £7.7million in one evening.
Ivey argued that he had managed to ‘outwit’ the casino but wasn’t dishonest
The court said that honesty should be assessed objectively – would the reasonable man find this dishonest (and they said he would)

This is a significant change in the law. The previous case of Ghosh said that the defendant had to be aware that he was being dishonest.
The change makes it much easier to find people guilty
Ivey is a civil case (he was suing the casino for his winnings) so the case is technically persuasive in criminal cases.

Question 24

Dishonesty statute W15P1 and P47

Answer 24

S2(1) Theft Act give three instances where you will NOT be dishonest

1. If you believe you or someone else has a right to the property
2. If you believe the owner would consent to you taking the property
3. If you believe the owner can’t be found by taking reasonable steps

These are subjective (depends what the defendant believed NOT what the reasonable man would have believed). It does not matter whether it was a correct or reasonable belief as long as they had a genuine belief.

Question 25

Case for the previous card W15P1 and P47

Answer 25

In R V Small (1987), D took a car which he believed had been abandoned. It had been left in the same place for two weeks with the keys in the ignition, in fact it had not been abandoned. He was not guilty because he had an honest belief that the owner could not be found. It is a subjective test and it does not matter what the reasonable man would have done.

Question 26

Intention to permanently deprive and a case W15P1 and ISP 15

Answer 26

It is shown through the actions of the defendant after the event, such as running away or destroying the property.
If there is no intention to permanently deprive the V of the stolen thing there is no theft.
In R V Lloyd (1985), the projectionist at a local cinema gave D a film that was showing at the cinema so that D could make an illegal copy. D returned the film in time of the next screening at the cinema. His conviction of theft was quashed because by returning the film in its original state, it was not possible to prove an intention to permanently deprive. The goodness, the virtue, the practical value of the films to the owners has not gone out of them.

Question 27

Robbery

Answer 27

Filler

Question 28

What is robbery W15P2

Answer 28

It is in S.8 of the Theft Act 1968. A person is guilty if he steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so he uses force on any person or seeks to put any person in fear of being then or there subject to force.

Question 29

What is the AR and MR of robbery W15P2

Answer 29

The AR is the use of force at the time or immediately before and force is used in order to steal. The MR is intention to use force.

Question 30

What must there be for there to be robbery W15P2 and P56 and 57

Answer 30

All 5 elements of theft must be proven.
This was shown in R V Waters (2015) as the defendant forcefully took the victims phone but said he would return it if her friend would speak to him.
There was no intention to permanently deprive her of the phone so there was no theft, so no robbery either.
While in Corcoran V Anderton (1980) one of the defendants hit a women in the back and tugged at her bag. She let go of the bag and it fell to the ground. The defendants ran off without the bag because the lady was screaming and causing attention. It was held that the theft was complete so the defendants were guilty of robbery.

Question 31

Cases to show whether there was force or threats of force

Answer 31

Filler

Question 32

R V Dawson and James (1976) P57 and W15P2

Answer 32

One of the defendants pushed the victim, causing him to lose his balance which enabled the other defendant to take his wallet. They were convicted of robbery. The COA held that force was an ordinary word and it was up to the jury to decide if there had been force. The force can be minor.

Question 33

R V Clouden (1987) W15P2 and P57

Answer 33

The COA held that D was guilty of robbery when the defendant forcibly grabbed a shopping bag from the victims hand. The force can be clothing or an object not just a person.

Question 34

P V DDP (2012) W15P2 and P57

Answer 34

D snatched a cigarette from V’s hand without touching V in anyway. It was held that there had been no direct contact. No force was applied to the person even indirectly.

Question 35

Force at the time or immediately before and case W15P2 and P58

Answer 35

The force must be applied in order to carry out the theft, it can’t be incidental to the theft.

In R v Hale (1979) the defendant broke into the victim’s home and stole jewellery. After taking these things he tied up the victim.
It was held that they were guilty because the theft was an ongoing act and continued after taking possession of the jewellery.