Implied terms Flashcards
What are the three property offences?
Theft
Robbery
Burglary
What Act lays out theft?
S.1 of the Theft Act 1968
What is theft defined as in S.1(1) of the Theft Act 1968?
A person is guilty of theft is he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
What are the 5 key elements of theft and their sections of the Theft Act?
S.2 - Dishonesty (MR)
S.3 - Appropriate (AR)
S.4 - Property (AR)
S.5 - Belonging to another (AR)
S.6 - With intention of permanently depriving the other (MR)
What are the three elements which make up the actus reus of theft?
Appropriation S.3
Property S.4
Belonging to another S.5
What is meant by Appropriation as an element of the AR for theft?
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation + where property r a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property
What three cases cover the assumption of rights of the owner?
R v Morris
Lawrence v MPC
R v Hinks
What hapened in the case of R v Morris?
The D was convicted of theft after switching the labels on products in supermarkets to obtain a lower price. One of the D’s was caught before he paid and one was caught after he paid. Conviction was upheld as the owner of the goods had a right to ensure that they were sold for the price the owner chose, which the D usurped when they switched the labels to be able to pay less
What happened in the case of Lawrence v MPC?
An Italian man who spoke little English, arrived at Victoria station on his first visit to the country. He got a taxi and gave the driver a piece of paper on which had an address written. The driver told him it would be a long and expensive trip. On arrival at the destination, the Italian took
What happened in the case of R v Hinks?
the D was a career for a man of limited intelligence. The D persuaded the V to make a series of payments to her from his bank account which she contended were gifts. The D was charged with theft. A gift could be appropriation where the grantee had acted dishonestly. The act doesn’t require to be unlawful under the general law to constitute an appropriation
What is classed as property under S.4(1) of the Theft Act 1968?
Money
Personal Property
Real property e.g. land and buildings
Things in action e.g. a bank account
Other intangible property rights which have no physical presence but can be stolen e.g. copyright
Would picking flowers from the forest consitute as theft?
Picking the flowers wouldn’t constitute a theft but if the D went on to sell these flowers for a profit, then this would be theft
S.4(3) Theft Act states various ‘things’ that cant be stolen, give 2 examples:
Picking wild blackberries( unless intend to sell them)
Electricity (but S.11 Theft Act dishonestly using electricity without due authority)
What happened in the case of Oxford v Moss?
The D was a civil engineering student who dishonestly obtained the proof of an examination paper. After he had read the paper he returned it. He was charged by the university authorities with theft of confidential information. On appeal, it was held that whilst D’s conduct was to be condemned and would be described by a layman as cheating, the confidential information so obtained by him did not fall within the definition of intangible property and so couldn’t be the subject-matter of a charge of theft
What happened in R v Marshall?
The D was found obtaining underground tickets from members of the public passing through the barriers, and reselling them to other potential customers. Courts held that the tickets remained the property of the London Underground and that there had been an appropriation with intent to permanently deprive. The conviction was upheld as the D had intended to treat the tickets as his own to dispose regardless of the others rights
What is meant by ‘belonging to another’ ?
The owner of the property - normally has possession and control of it. This can be confusing
What two cases illustrate ‘belonging to another’ as part of the actus reus for theft?
R v Turner No.2
R v Woodman
What happened in the case of R v Turner?
The D took his car in to a service station for repairs. When he went to pick it up he saw that the case was left outside with the key in. He took the car without paying for the repairs. He was liable for theft of his own car since the car was regarded as belonging to the service station as they were in possession and control of the car
What happened in the case of R v Woodman?
A sold all the scrap metal on certain disused business premises to B, who removed most of it but left some as being too inaccessible to be worth the expense of removal. The D then entered the premises to take some of this scrap and was convicted of theft as the scraps belonged to B
What happens if property is obtained by mistake? Give a case example:
S.5(4) Theft Act 1968 - where a person is given something by mistake and is under an obligation to return it, keeping it may constitute a theft: Ag Ref No.1 1983
What happened in the case of AG Ref No.1 1983?
The D, a police woman, received an overpayment in her wages by mistake. She had noticed that she had received more than she was entitled to but didn’t say anything to her employer. She didn’t withdraw any of the money from her bank account. It was held possible for a theft conviction to arise where the D hadn’t withdrawn the money.
What is meant by dishonesty in terms of the mens rea of theft?
Theft is a crime of specific intent so it’s necessary to prove intention. A person can not recklessly steal. There is no statutory definition of dishonesty, instead, S.2(1) Theft Act 1968 sets out the situations when D would be held to not have ben dishonest.
In what circumstances would the D be held to not have been dishonest when appropriating the property?
S.2(1)(a): you had a genuine belief that you had the legal right to appropriate the property
S.2(1)(b): the owner would have consented
S.2(1)(c): the owner can’t be discovered by taking reasonable steps
What happened in the case of R v Robinson 1977?
The D was owed £7 by a woman. He approached the womans husband brandishing a knife, and a fight ensued during which the womans husband dropped a £5 note. The D picked up the £5 and demanded the remaining £2. The D was convicted of robbery. The conviction was quashed as he honestly believed he was entitled to the money in law, he didn’t have the necessary mens rea for theft
What happened in he case of Ivey v Genting Casinos?
Ivey was caught cheating at the casino and the courts held that Ivey’s actions of edge-sorting amounted to cheating. The court found they edge-sorting involved manipulating the game in a manner which was not intended by the casino and was inheritably dishonest. The court also took this opportunity to overrule the Ghosh test for dishonesty
What is the new test for dishonesty established in Ivey v Genting Casinos?
Two step objective test:
-Determining the actual state of the individuals knowledge or belief as to the facts
-Whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people
What is meant by S.6 Intention of permanently depriving the other, and what two cases illustrate this?
If he intends to treat the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s right and this may sometimes occur even if the D claimed he had only intended to borrow the goods: R v Lavender + R v Lloyd
What happened in the case of R v Lavender?
The D removed some doors from a council property that was due for demolition. He installed the doors in his girlfriend flat which was also owned by the council. It was held that he did have the intention to permanently deprive under S.6(1) as he treated the doors as his own to disposed of regardless of the owners rights
What happened in the case of R v Lloyd?
The D was a chief projectionist at a cinema and gave movie tapes to two other D’s who copied and sold them. The D was convicted of theft under S.1(1) the conviction was quashed as the courts held that borrowing could only amount to the intention to permanently deprive if the intention was to return the property in a changed state where it had lost its goodness, virtue, or practical value
What act defined robbery and what is it defined as?
S.8 Theft Act 1968 - 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 used force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force
What are the 4 elements of the actus reus that can be broken down from the definition?
-Steals (AR of theft)
-Immediately before or at the time of stealing
-Use of force or threat of force on any person
-Use/threat of force in order to steal
What are the two cases that cover the timing of the force?
Hale
Lockley
What happened in the case of Hale?
Two D’s entered the V’s home and stole her jewelry box and then tied V to a chair. They were convicted of robbery and appealed against the conviction on the basis that the offence of theft was complete when they took the jewelry box and they, therefore, didn’t use force immediately before or at the time of stealing. The D’s convictions were upheld as the whole course of conduct is considered stealing. Appropriation doesn’t immediately finish when the D’s conduct meets the minimum essential requirements for appropriation
What happened in the case of Lockley?
The D stole cans of beer from an off-licence. The shop keeper tried to prevent him leaving the shop with the stolen items, and the D assaulted the shopkeeper to escape. The D appealed, claiming that R v Gomez had overruled the decision in R v Hale on the issue as to whether appropriation was a continuing act. It was held not to be overruled and for the purpose of robbery, appropriation is a continuous act and it’s for the jury to decide whether the theft is complete prior to the use of force.
What is meant by the use of force or threat of force on any person? what case illustrates this?
The force must be used ‘on a person’ - this includes where D wrenched a bag from V, but not where D snatches a bag off V’s lap as they don’t use force on the person: DPP v P
What happened in the case of DPP v P?
The V had a cigarette between his fingers which the D snatched from between, but without making direct contact, so it was held not a robbery as no force was used upon the person
What is meant by the use/threat of force in order to steal?
The force used MUST be in order to steal - force must be sufficient to be noticeable but a threat of future force will not be sufficient. There doesn’t have to be an actual application of force - if D puts/seeks to put a person in fear of force then this threat is enough
What happens if the forces used isn’t in order to steal?
This won’t result in a robbery conviction but rather 2 separate offences of a non-fatal offence and a theft
What happened in the case of Dawson and James?
One D pushed the V who lost his balance enabling the second D to steal his wallet. The 2 D’s were convicted of robbery and appealed on the basis that the pushing of the V didn’t amount to the use of force on another person to steal. Their convictions were upheld
What happened in the case of Bentham?
The D broke into a house and used his finger in his pocket to make a gun shape. He was charged with possession of an imitation weapon. The courts decided that a person can not possess that which is a part of themselves. The D wasn’t convicted
What is the mens rea for robbery?
It is the mens rea for theft plus the intention to use force to steal
What needs to be shown for the mens rea of robbery?
-The D must have the intention to permanently deprive the V of the property, and they must have been dishonest
-The force used was with the intention to steal or the D was reckless as to the force
What act defines burglary?
S.9 Theft Act 1968
What does S.9(1)(a) Theft act state?
a person is guilty of burglary is he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned is subsection (2)
What does S.9(1)(b) Theft act state?
A person is guilty of burglary if having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person there in any grievous bodily harm
What is the simplified meaning and difference between S.9(1)(a) and S.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968?
S.9(1)(a) - knowingly wanting to steal before entering the building
S.9(1)(b) - deciding to steal after entering the building
What are the three elements of the actus reus for burglary?
Entry
Of a building or part of a building
As a trespasser
What is meant by ‘entry’ under the actus reus of burglary?
D must enter the building/part of the building. The entry must be ‘effective’ and need not be substantial
What cases illustrate effective entry?
Brown 1985
Ryan 1996
What happened in the case of Brown?
The D broke a shop window and stuck the top half of his body through the whole whole rummaging around inside the shop in order to steal the contents. His lower half remained outside the shop. D was convicted of burglary. The courts held that entry had to be effective but the word substantial wasn’t considered to be of additional help
What happened in the case of Ryan?
The D was discovered in the early hours of the morning stuck inside the window of an elderly persons house and had to be removed by the fire brigade. He had only managed to get his head and one arm inside the window. The was convicted of burglary. The fact that nothing was stolen was only because he had gotten stuck. D still had a partial presence within the building, amounting to entry
What is meant by ‘part of a building’ under S.9(3) of the Theft Act 1986?
There is no definition for building but it will apply to houses, flats, offices, factories, inhabited vehicles or vessels etc. It will also include outbuildings and sheds
What two cases illustrate what is meant by ‘part of a building’ under burglary?
Rodmell
B&S Leathley
Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould
Walkington
What happened in the case of Rodmell?
The D took a power tool from a garden shed which stood in three and a quarter acres of grounds of a house, and some 60 yards from the house. The courts held that a shed is part of a persons home.
What happened in the case of B and L Leathley?
The D’s entered a freezer container and stole goods from it. The container stood in a farm yard, weighed 3 tons, was 25 foot long by 7 feet, had doors and locks, connected to the mains electric, and hadn’t been moved in 2 years. The courts referred to Stevens v Gourley which stated that a building is a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least to endure for a considerable time.
What happened in the case of Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould?
The D’s were convicted of attempted burglary of 2 articulated lorry trailers. The trailers were unhitched standing on their own wheels and struts, had an electric cable steps built against each trailer, and were being used for about 1 year. The D’s appealed their conviction which was accepted by the courts as they held that a vehicle can only be a building if it is inhabited
What happened in the case of Walkington?
The D walked behind a counter in a store opening the cash register intending to steal the money, but it was empty. The D was convicted if burglary and it was upheld as the court held that the counter was a part of a building to which the D didn’t have permission to be.
What is meant by ‘as a trespasser’ under burglary?
In order for D to commit burglary, they must enter as a trespasser. If a person has permission to enter they aren’t a trespasser. A person doesn’t have to have express permission to enter the premises - it might be implied. A person can also become a trespasser by exceeding their permission: Smith and Jones
What happened in the case of Smith and Jones?
The D’s entered the D’s fathers home and stole 2 television sets. The D claimed his father had given him unreserved permission to enter the house. The court held that a person who has a general permission to enter a premises may still be a trespasser is he enters knowing he is acting in excess of the permission given
What is the mens rea needed for burglary?
The mens rea dictates the type of burglary, it needs to be established what the D’s intention was at the time of entering the premises.
What are the two questiones asked when deciding the mens rea?
-Did the D, enter the property as a trespasser and, once inside, commit or attempt to commit one of the two ulterior offences - is so its a s.9(1)(b) offence
-Did the D, at the time of entering as a trespasser, intend to commit one of the three ulterior offences - is so its a S.9(1)(a)
