Module 14 - Property offences

Question 1

Where is theft defined?

Answer 1

Theft Act 1968 s1(1)

Question 2

What is theft defined as?

Answer 2

A person is guilty of theft “if he dishonesty appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”

Question 3

What are the two elements of mens rea for theft?

Answer 3

• Dishonesty s2
• Intention to permanently deprive s6

Question 4

What are the three elements of actus reus for theft?

Answer 4

• Appropriation s3
• of property s4
• belonging to another s5

Question 5

What is appropriation (s3) defined as?

Answer 5

Defined as “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner”
- If someone else does any of selling, renting or even destroying an owner’s property, the owner’s rights have been ‘assumed’

Question 6

What was the legal outcome of Morris?

Answer 6

The court held there must be an adverse interference with the owner’s rights.
> Thus appropriation occurred when he switched the labels.
> So it can be theft even if you don’t take anything.

Question 7

What would the owner have consented to in Morris?

Answer 7

in Morris, the owner would consent to taking the goods off the supermarket shelf, but not to switching labels; court held there must be an adverse, or unauthorised, appropriation.

Question 8

What happened and what was the legal outcome in Gomez?

Answer 8

Money left in a safe; this money had cheques to cover it, yet the monetary value of the cheques disappeared due to unforeseen circumstances.
> D knew the cheques were worthless yet still used them to obtain goods
> D was guilty of theft; court held there was no need for an adverse interference

Question 9

What was the legal outcome of Hinks, and why were there divisions?

Answer 9

A man with low IQ had given money and property away
> Court held, by a 3-2 majority, that there was an appropriation (divisive case on dishonesty/consent)
> Lord Hobhouse argued there was no appropriation, but Hutton agreed that there was appropriation, but that consent could mean no dishonesty.

Question 10

What was the legal outcome of Lawrence?

Answer 10

Appropriation can occur with the owner’s consent

Question 11

What is of property (s4) defined as?

Answer 11

‘Money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’

Question 12

What is the legal outcome of Kelly and Lindsay?

Answer 12

Body parts come within s4 if they have been treated in some way (i.e. by dissecting or preserving them for medical purposes)

Question 13

What is the legal outcome of Oxford and Moss?

Answer 13

Examination paper was taken but it was not theft as he intended to return it (no dishonesty); he just wanted knowledge of the questions, and this was not property

Question 14

What was the legal outcome of Turner?

Answer 14

You can even steal your own property

Question 14

What is belonging to another (s5) defined as?

Answer 14

‘Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest’

Question 15

What was the legal outcome of Woodman?

Answer 15

You can steal from someone who doesn’t know of the property

Question 16

What is the application of property received under an obligation s5(3)?

Answer 16

If something is given for a purpose, not using it for that purpose can be theft

Question 17

What was the legal outcome of Davidge and Burnett?

Answer 17

She had an obligation to pay the bills, but instead bought Christmas presents and left the flat; this was theft.

Question 18

In what circumstances can D appropriate property for dishonesty (s2)?

Answer 18

a.) ‘he has in the law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a third person’

b.) ‘he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it’

c.) ‘the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps’

Question 19

What was the legal outcome of Wain?

Answer 19

He had an obligation to retain the proceeds, even if not the actual notes and coins

Question 19

What was the legal outcome of Hall?

Answer 19

It was established that there must be an obligation to retain or deal with the property in a ‘particular way’, thus it was not theft (he intended to pay but his company went bankrupt)

Question 19

What is the definition of dishonesty (s2)?

Answer 19

There is no given definition of dishonesty in the Theft Act 1968, but the act identifies behaviour which is not dishonest.

Question 20

What is the application of Property obtained by mistake s5(4), and what case relates?

Answer 20

If you are given something by mistake, such as overpaid wages, you have an obligation to return it, so keeping it can be theft.
> i.e. in A-G’s Reference (No 1 of 1983)

Question 21

What is important about dishonesty in terms of D’s mens rea, and the jury?

Answer 21

It is what D believes that is important; does not have to be a reasonable belief; although the more reasonable the belief is, easier it will be to convince a jury.
- These beliefs relate to the mens rea, not the actus reus; a belief that the owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps is enough

Question 22

What is the legal outcome of Robinson?

Answer 22

Robinson's honest belief that he was entitled to the money negated the necessary mens rea for theft, as he was not dishonest.

Question 23

What is the Ghosh Test (R v Ghosh)?

Answer 23

Objective Test: Was the defendant's conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable, and honest people Subjective Test: If so, did the defendant realise that ordinary honest people would view his conduct as dishonest?

Question 24

Which case overruled the subjective element of the Ghosh test?

Answer 24

Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)

Question 25

What was the legal outcome of Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)?

Answer 25

Supreme Court overruled the subjective element of the Ghosh test. - The court held that dishonesty should be assessed solely based on the objective standards of ordinary, reasonable, and honest people, eliminating the need to consider the defendant's personal understanding.

Question 26

What will the jury have to decide in a theft case?

Answer 26

The jury will have to decide if they, as reasonable and honest people, consider D’s act as dishonest > Unless the facts are clear, it is possible to say ‘if the jury… then D may be guilty of theft’; many cases, won’t be easy to decide

Question 27

What is intention to permanently deprive (s6) defined as?

Answer 27

D’s ‘intention to treat the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights’

Question 28

What was the legal outcome of Lloyd?

Answer 28

Court held this meant that ‘all the goodness or virtue has gone’ (borrowing property without altering its value or condition does not meet the threshold for theft, after D’s took illegal copies of films)

Question 28

What was the legal outcome of Velumyl?

Answer 28

Court held he had treated the money as his own, and he could not return the exact notes from his employer’s safe, so it was theft.

Question 29

What was the legal outcome of Lavender?

Answer 29

D treated the doors taken from one council flat to another as his own regardless of the owner's rights; on this basis, Velumyl would have been guilty even if he returned the same notes.

Question 30

What was the legal outcome of Raphael?

Answer 30

court held D taking V’s car by force and demanding repayment for its return included ‘an intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights’ + the return of the property was subject to a condition inconsistent with the rights of the owner, so it was therefore theft (and force made it robbery)

Question 31

What is the actus reus for robbery?

Answer 31

AR = theft and force or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of force

Question 32

What is robbery?

Answer 32

Robbery is theft which is aggravated by the use of the threat of force.

Question 33

What is the mens rea for robbery?

Answer 33

MR = mens rea for theft and the intention to use force to steal.

Question 34

When must the force be for robbery?

Answer 34

Force must be immediately before or at the time of the theft, in order to steal. - When force is used to steal, then the moment the theft is completed, there is a robbery.

Question 35

What must be proved for robbery, and what case relates to this?

Answer 35

There must be a complete theft for a robbery to have been committed (all elements of theft must be present) > i.e. in Robinson, not all elements were present (no dishonesty s2)

Question 36

What was the legal outcome for Corcoran v Anderton (1980)?

Answer 36

Even though the theft was physically incomplete, the court held that the theft was complete once they attempted to appropriate the bag.

Question 37

What must the prosecution prove about force?

Answer 37

The prosecution must prove force or the threat or force; force can be minimal

Question 38

What was the legal outcome of Dawson and James (1976)?

Answer 38

Any force is sufficient for robbery, and the jury should decide if force has been used.

Question 39

What was the legal outcome of Clouden (1987)?

Answer 39

Established force applied to an object attached to you meets the statutory requirement of force on a person.

Question 40

What must D seek to do in terms of force for robbery?

Answer 40

D must put or seek to put a person in fear of force; the fact that D sought to put the victim in fear is enough (robbery is also committed even if V is not actually frightened)

Question 41

What was the legal outcome of B and R v DPP (2007)?

Answer 41

Court ruled that V’s subjective experience was irrelevant, the focus was on D’s intent to apply force to facilitate theft.

Question 42

What is the link between appropriation of property and continuity?

Answer 42

Appropriation of property being a continuing act

Question 43

What was the legal outcome of Hale?

Answer 43

Court held appropriation of the property (jewellery) was a continuing act; the force used to tie up the victim occurred ‘at the time of stealing’

Question 44

What was the legal outcome of Lockley?

Answer 44

D was caught shoplifting and pushed past a security guard in his escape, using force; D claimed the theft was complete before the use of force; court held that appropriation of property is a continuing act.