PAPER 1: Section B - Theft, Burglary and Robbery [COMPLETE]

Question 1

1) Define theft aka s.1 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 1

s.1 is the definition of theft - ‘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

2) What THREE sections make up the actus reus of theft?

Answer 2

s.3, s.4 & s.5 - ‘appropriates property belonging to another’

Question 3

3) What is s.3 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 3

Appropriation - ‘Assuming the rights of an owner, which includes selling, destroying, consuming, using, lending or hiring out the property alongside just possessing it’

Question 4

4) What are THREE relevant cases to s.3 (appropriation) of the Theft Act?

[hint - LABELS, TAXI, CHEQUES]

Answer 4

R v MORRIS - The owner’s right to put a price label on the goods was a right that Morris had assumed.

R v Lawrence - Lawrence took advantage of a non English speaker and took more money from the passenger . Courts denied the fact that the student ‘consented’ it.

R v GOMEZ - Cashier accepted stolen cheques and used deception at one point in time.

Question 5

5) What is s.4 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 5

Property - ‘Property can be money (coins, notes), real property (buildings, land can NOT be stolen) , personal property (cars, jewellery, books, clothes), things in action (a cheque) and other intangible property’. (non physical items like quotas)

Question 6

6) What are TWO relevant cases to s.4 (property) of the Theft Act?

[HINT: DEAD BODIES, EXAM PAPERS]

Answer 6

R v KELLY AND LINDSAY - Dead bodies and their parts can be counted as personal property in the terms of theft.
OXFORD V MOSS - D didn’t intend to permanently deprive the paper and didn’t take any property as knowledge of the questions doesn’t amount to property.

Question 7

7) What is s.5 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 7

Belonging to another - At the time of the appropriation, the property belonged to another person. Useful if original owner is unknown.

Question 8

8) What is the relevant case to s.5 (belonging to another) of the Theft Act?

[HINT: own car]

Answer 8

R v Turner - The garage was in possession of the car at the time of the appropriation until they get paid. As D didn’t pay, he was guilty of theft (…of his own car).

Question 9

9) What TWO sections make up the mens rea of theft?

Answer 9

s.2 & s.6

Question 10

10) What is s.2 of the Theft Act 1968?

in other words, what are three ways someone is not being [BLANK]

Answer 10

Dishonesty - No definition however
Someone is NOT dishonest if they have
a) in law, they have the right to deprive the other of the property on behalf of themself or a third party.
b) they know the owner would consent to the appropriation.
c) the original owner can’t be traced.

Question 11

11) What are TWO relevant cases to s.2 (dishonesty) of the Theft Act 1968?
[hint: hold on & rights to property, miniscule & car]

Answer 11

R v HOLDEN - Holden was acquitted as he believed had a legal right to the property as an employee and genuinely held this belief.
R v SMALL - D believed the car was abandoned Therefore, due to this geniune belief that the owner couldn’t be found, he was acquitted.

Question 12

12) [IMPORTANT] What is the GHOSH TEST?

Answer 12

The jury must decide whether ‘What was done dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?’
If yes, then the jury must consider if the defendant themself realised that what he was doing was dishonest by these ordinary standards?.

Question 13

13) What is s.6 of Theft Act 1968?

Answer 13

Intention of Permanently Depriving -

Question 14

14) What are TWO relevant cases to s.6 (intention of permanently depriving) of Theft Act 1968?
[hint: notes, open bag]

Answer 14

R v VELUMYL - Convicted as he had the intention of permanently depriving the company of the banknotes which he had taken from the safe and coudn’t pay back the exact same notes.

R v EASOM - Easom was acquitted as he didn’t take anything from the bag and didn’t intend to permenantly deprive anything from the bag.

Question 15

15) Define robbery aka s.8 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 15

Robbery is a theft aggravated by the use or threat of force.

Question 16

16) What are the two elements of the actus reus of robbery?

Answer 16

• Theft

- Force OR putting the person in fear of force

Question 17

17) What are the two conditions on the force?

Answer 17

1) It must be immediately BEFORE or AT THE SAME TIME of the theft.
2) It must be in order to steal.

Question 18

18) For a robbery to occur, a COMPLETED THEFT must take place. Define a completed theft and state its relevant CASE.

Answer 18

A completed theft is when ALL elements of theft have to be present. (s.1-s.6)

Corcoran v Anderton - The defendants grabbed a women’s bag but she held onto it and screamed. They ran off empty handed but despite this were till charged of robbery as they had all the elements of theft AND used force at the same time.

Question 19

19) For a robbery to occur, there must be a FORCE or a THREAT OF FORCE. Define force (trick question) and state THREE relevant CASES.

Answer 19

No definition for force exactly, but must be noticeable to a jury (the victim doesn’t have to notice it).

R v DAWSON & JAMES - The jury decided that nudging the victim still fell under force, even if it wasn’t violent.

R v CLOUDEN - Even though the defendant didn’t touch the women, the force was still applied by wrenching the bag out of her grasp.

P v DPP - However, it was held here there was no robbery as D snatched a cigarette without touching V in anyway, so no force was used.

Question 20

20) Force must be immediately before or at the time of the theft. State TWO relevant CASES.
[HINT: jewellery, escape]

Answer 20

Theft has to be a continuing act.

R v HALE - The appropriation of the jewellery was a continuing act and tying her up was the force applied during the theft.

R v LOCKLEY - He used force in order to escape which still made him liable for robbery on the police officer.

Question 21

21) What are the two elements of mens rea of robbery? NO CASES.

Answer 21

• Mens rea of theft - s.2 (dishonesty) & s.6 (intention to permanently deprive)
• The intention to use force to steal

Question 22

22) Define burglary aka s.9 of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 22

Section 9(1)(a) - A person enters a building or part of a building WITH THE INTENT TO steal, inflict GBH or cause unlawful damage.

Section 9(1)(b) - A person is a trespasser in a building and actually steals / attempts to steal OR inflicts / attempts to inflict GBH.

Question 23

23) What are the simlilarities between s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) of burglary?

Answer 23

Both requires the defendant to enter a building or part of a building as a TRESPASSER.

Question 24

24) What are the differences between s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) of burglary?

Answer 24

In s.9(1)(a), the defendant must INTEND to steal, inflict GBH or cause unlawful damage. They DO NOT have to do or attempt either offence in order to be convicted.

In s.9(1)(b), the defendant’s initial intention is IRRELEVANT. To convict the defendant, it must be proven that they committed or attempted to commit theft or GBH whilst in the building.

Question 25

25) What’s classed as ‘entry’ in burglary and provide THREE relevant CASES.

Answer 25

R v Collins - Jury had to be satisfied that an effective and substantial entry was made.

R v Brown - Substantial didn’t match the definition of entry as D rummaged through a broken glass window to steal goods. His entry, however, was still effective, so he was convicted.

R v Ryan - There was evidence to suggest D was trespassing in the house to either steal (or attempt to) or commit GBH (or attempt to) even though we don’t know why he was there initially. [s.9(1)(b)]. His entry wasn’t ‘effective’ as he was trapped but he was still liable.

Question 26

26) What counts as a building or part of a building in s.9 Theft Act 1968? Provide three relevant CASES.
[hint; houseboats, sheds, counter area]

Answer 26

Houses, flats, offices, factories etc
R v Coleman - Houseboats count as D was convicted of burglary for two houseboats
R v Rodwell - Outbuildings and sheds also counts as D was convicted of burglary of a garden shed.
R v Walkington - Convicted for burglary under 9(1)(a) as he went into a counter area and opened a till. D, as a customer, has the right to be in the shopping area of the shops, but the counter area is out of bounds unless you’re staff, so he was a trespasser with the intention to steal money. (other examples include shop storerooms)

Question 27

27) What is the relevant case for ‘being a trespasser’ in s.9 Theft Act 1968?
[HINT: sex]

Answer 27

R v Collins - Was acquitted because there he claimed that he wasn’t an intruder because he was invited in. The prosecution must prove the defendant knew they were trespassing intentionally or they were reckless whilst trespassing.

Question 28

28) What is the relevant case for going beyond permission in s.9 Theft Act 1968? [hint: father’s tv]

Answer 28

R v Smith v Jones - D’s took two TV’S from father’s house without his knowledge. A person is a trespasser under s.9 (1)(b) of the Theft Act if he enters someone else’s premises knowing they are breaching the initial permission given to enter or being reckless breaching this.

Question 29

29) What is the mens rea for burglary? (both parts)

Answer 29

Must know they’re trespassing OR be subjectively reckless as to whether they’re trespassing.

Question 30

30) What is the ‘flowchart’ to figure out mens rea of burglary?

Answer 30

When the defendant entered as a trespasser, did they intend to •steal, •inflict GBH or •do unlawful damage at the time of entering the building?
| I
YES - s.9(1)(a) NO
I
Once inside a building, did
the defendant steal (or
attempt to) OR inflict GBH
(or attempt to)?
I I
YES - s.9(1)(b) NO - acquitted.