Property offences Flashcards
What is the maximum sentence for basic criminal damage?
10 years imprisonment
What are the 5 parts of basic criminal damage?
- Destroy or damage
- Property
- Belonging to another
- Without lawful excuse
- Intention or recklessness as to the damage or destruction of property belonging to another
What is meant by ‘destroy or damage’?
- No statutory definition provided
- Destroy = property ceases to exist following D’s actions
- Damage is a question of fact and degree - guided by circumstsances of each case
To be ‘damaged’, must the damage be permanent or render it useless?
- Need not be permanent - can fix with time, effort and money (e.g. graffiti is damage even though it can be washed away or cleaned)
- Need not be made useless to be damaged
Does ‘damage’ only encompass physical harm?
No - includes permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness (e.g. out of order toilet) as well as temporary or permanent physical damage
What will damage not include?
- Something that can be wiped away without leaving mark or stain (spit on policeman’s raincoat)
For the purposes of basic criminal damage, what does ‘property’ include and not include?
- Includes: real or personal tangible property, money, animals and their carcasses if they been reduced into possession
- Does not include: mushrooms, plant, flowers, or fruit growing wild on any land, or information
When will property belong to another for basic criminal damage?
- Custody or control of it
- Proprietary right or interest (not equitable interest arising from estate contract)
- Having a charge on it
Property can belong to more than one person!
What is the MR for basic criminal damage
Intention (orindary meaning) or recklessness (subj aware of risk, objc unreasonable to take in known circumstances) as to destruction or damage of property belonging to another
What does it mean that the MR extends to the whole of the AR for basic criminal damage?
Must be proved that D knew or was reckless a to whether property belonged to another (i.e. cannot cause basic criminal damage if you do not know property belongs to another)
Insufficient that D only does act that damages property intentionally
E.g. Smith - smashed wall panels and floorboards to gain access to wiring he had fitted in rented accomodation - conviction for basic criminal damage quashed - no offence committed if person destroys or damages property belonging to another if he does so in honest though mistaken belief that property is his own - provided belief honestly held it is irrelevant to consider whether or not belief is justifiable
If you destroy/damage property with the honest belief it is your own, will the justifiability of this belief be considered?
No, provided it is honestly held
What is arson, and to what degree does damage have to be to qualify as it?
Criminal damage by fire, however slight
How does the AR and MR differ for basic arson than basic criminal damage?
- AR the same but destroy or damage by fire
- MR the same but by fire
Can consider them in parallel from here - same for aggravated
When will a D not commit criminal damage?
If they have a lawful excuse
What are the two things a lawful excuse might be?
- Any general defence (self-defence, duress)
- Lawful excuse defences - where relevant apply to basic criminal damage/arson
Will lawful excuses apply to aggravated damage?
No
What are the 2 lawful excuse defences?
- Where D believes owner would have consented to damage
- Where D acts to protect their or another’s property
Does the D’s belief that the owner would have consented to the damage need to be reasonable?
No - only honestly held, does not need to be justified (subjective)
Even if it results from intoxication! I.e. a drunken belief
Will a D’s motive be taken into account?
No - provided D honestly believes that owner of property has/would have consented to damage
Even where motive is to perpetuate a fraud
E.g. Denton - owner of failing factory said to D a fire would improve financial circumstances of business - D took instruction to set fire to factory - conviction quashed and was entitled to defence
What are the limits to the lawful excuse of believed consent?
However strong a belief might be, consent cannot be given by God
Will the lawful excuse of protecting property apply to people, also?
E.g. mother kicks down door to save child from perceived threat from husband
No - defence only operates for protection of property - a child does not constitute property but a pet might!
What are the 4 requirements of the lawful excuse of acting to protect property?
- D must act to protect property
- D must believe property was in immediate need of protectoin (subjective)
- D must believe that means of protection adopted are reasonable (subjective)
- Damage caused by D must be capable of protecting the property (objective)
E.g. squatter fits locks in house and damages door in doing so - raises defence there had been high number of thefts in areas - conviction of criminal damage upheld as property not in immediate need of protection
What is meant by the requirement that the damage caused by D must be capable of protecting the property?
Not sufficient that accused intended to prevent further damage, the act must be objectively capable of protecting the property from damage
Hunt - started fire in bedroom to demonstrate inadequacy of fire alarm in block of flats - fire alarm did not work so alled fire brigade
When will damage be too remote to protect property?
Hill and Hall - cut wire fence of nuclear submarine base to reduce nuclear strike and protect her property
What is the AR of aggravated criminal damage (or arson)?
- Destroy or damage (by fire)
- Property
What is the MR of aggravated criminal damage (or arson)?
Intention or recklessness as to:
- The damage or destruction of property (by fire); and
- The endangerment of life by the damage or destruction (by fire)
How is aggravated criminal damage (or arson) different to basic criminal damage (or arson)?
- D can commit aggravated criminal damage to own property
- Lawful excuse defences for basic now do not apply (but can still have excuse if any general defences apply)
Does the life of another actually need to be endangered as per the MR?
No - irrelevant
Sangha - set fire to furniture in flat and no danger to occupants in that flat or adjacent flats - court held issue was whether accused intended or was reckless to whether life might have been endangered, not whether it actually was endangered
When deciding whether life is endangered, does ‘damage and destruction’ for MR of aggravated criminal damage refer to that a) actually caused or b) that which was intended or to which there was recklessness?
b) that which was intended or to which there was recklessness
Dudley - threw fire bomb at house which was extinguished and only minimal damage caused - did not matter that actual damage did not endanger life as the intended damage did
What must the danger to life arise from?
The property itself, not the means of damaging it
Must be a causal link between the damage to property and danger to life
Steer - bullets shot through window did not consitute endangerment of life by damage/destruction to property; any risk to life was caused by the bullets and not by damaged property
Webster - Ds pushed stone from bridge on to train which hit carriage
- Stone crashes through roof of train and injures passengers = not aggravated criminal damage
- Stone smashes roof and metal or wood struts from roof and descends upon passenger endangering life = aggravated criminal damage
When will the risk to life always be from the damaged property?
If the damage is caused by fire
When is a person guilty of theft?
If he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
What are the 5 elements - that make up AR and MR - that must be proven to secure a conviction for theft?
AR
- Appropriation
- Property
- Belonging to another
MR
- Dishonestly
- With the intention to permanently deprive
When must all the elements exist?
Simultaneously
What is appropriation?
1st element of AR
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
How many rights need to be assumed?
Any one of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation
Morris - D replaced labels of products in shop with lower priced labels and paid lower price for items - arrested and convicted of theft - owner’s right to label goods was assumed
If the owner gives consent, what is the effect on appropriation?
Especially if no adverse interference with/usurpation of owner’s rights
You can still appropriate with consent from the owner and there does not need to be adverse interference with the owner’s rights
Gomez - allowed co-accused to purchase goods from shop he worked at using 2 stolen building society cheques - Gomez asked shop manager to authorise sale by accepting cheques in payment - Gomez lied and told shop manager the cheques were ‘as good as cash’ - sale went ahead, cheques subsequently dishonoured, and Gomez and co-accused charged with theft. Tried to argue he could not be guilty of theft as shop manager had authorised transactions so no appropriation - convicted of theft
Can a valid gift be stolen?
Yes - state of mind of donor is irrelevant to appropriation and so can take place with or without consent of owner - so person can be guilty of stealing valid gift
Hinks - D befriended 53 y/o man of limited intelligence who she influenced and coerced into giving her £300 everyday, up to £60,000 eventually - D convicted
If the D does not have the MR when first assuming owner’s right, does this mean no theft can occur?
No - theft can ‘occur’ when the later assumption of a right happens (keeping it, dealing with it etc.) even if initial assumption of rights did not amount to theft
D will not commit theft when first assuming owner’s right but will later
Can an innocent purchaser be guilty of theft?
D purchases goods in good faith and for value and later discoveres that seller had no title to property, but decides to keep it
No - but bad faith precludes protection
Can all property be stolen?
2nd element of AR
Generally yes (money, real property, perosnal property, intangible property [right to sue/recover], shares, patents, a debit/credit, forged cheques) except
- Land
- Wild plants and creatures
- Electricity
- Corpses and body parts (except in hospitals/teaching purposes or blood given to blood bank)
- Confidential information
- Services e.g. train journey
- Cheques drawn on accounts over the agreed limit
Some subject to exceptions…
Can unlawful/illegal items be stolen?
Yes!
Although in general land cannot be stolen, when can a person nevertheless be guilty of theft?
I.e. acts that are related to land
- They are authorised to sell land and sell more than they are meant to
- D is a trespasser or invited guest and removes a fence/plant
- D is a tenant and removes or sells without removing a fixed greenhouse
Although in general plants cannot be stolen, when can a person nevertheless be guilty of theft?
- Where purpose of picking wild plant is for reward, to sell, or another commercial purpose
- D uproots or cuts part of wild plant
- D picks cultivated plants
Although in general wild animals cannot be stolen, when can a person nevertheless be guilty of theft?
Wild animals = untamed animals/animals not usually kept in captivity
- Tamed animals (pets)
- Animals kept in captivity (zoo)
- Animals in course of being reduced into possession (e.g. trapped)
What is included in property ‘belonging to another’? Is legal ownership required?
3rd requirement of AR
- Ownership
- Possession or control of it
- Proprietary interest in it
at moment of appropriation
When will property be abandoned? For example in the case of a lost item the owner has stopped looking for or domestic waste?
(and therefore cease to belong to another)
Not readily found by courts; depends on whether owner wants property or wants it to go to another party
- Not abandoned because owner has stopped looking for it (e.g. wedding ring)
- Domestic waste is not abandoned; householder intends goods to be collected by local authority
Can you be in ‘possession and control’ of property that you did not know was on your land?
E.g. bracelet down the side of a sofa
Yes - but must demonstrate intention to exercise control over items found expressly (e.g. putting up notice) or impliedly
E.g. Parker - D found gold bracelet in British Airways executive lounge so court had to consider whether BA had possession or control of the bracelet - it did not, but would have if it had shown an intention to exercise control over the building and things in it e.g. putting up notice - would have meant that the company secured possession of bracelet before D found it but D got to keep bracelet here
Can you steal your own property?
Yes, when it is in possession and control of another
Turner - D took car from garage with spare keys without using bill - convicted of theft as mechanic was in control and possession of car
Where property is handed over for a particular purpose, and the title in that property passes to the D before D has formed a dishonest intention to use it for an unauthorised purpose, when will the property belong to another?
E.g. you give money to someone so they can pay for a certain thing (e.g. energy bills) and then they decide not to use it to pay that - will that be theft?
If D is under a legal obligation to use the property for the purpose given, the property will belong to another for the purposes of D = can say theft occurred
- Object of law here to avoid civil law effects re the passing of title in money
LOOK AT FOLLOWING EXAMPLES IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS
I.e. it will ‘belong to another’ with another being the person that handed it over/title has passed from
When will D be under a legal obligation to deal with the property in a particular way?
Is a matter of law; no automatic application
Will there be a legal obligation in a domestic context?
There can be e.g. Davidge - energy bill money was spent on xmas presents, found guilty of theft
When will a legal obligation not exist in business circumstances?
Where there is no expectation/undertaking that money will be kept separately/spent in a certain way
E.g. Hall - travel agent took money for flights but used it to pay off creditors rather than buy airline tickets, then D went bankrupt and customers lost money they paid - no theft; not established that clients expected him to retain money and deal with money in particular way/no undertaking - clients expected tickets in return for money, but did not expect their money to be kept separately but rather go towards general running of business
When will there be a legal obligation in business/trust circumstances?
Where an express assurance is given that money will be safeguarded by a stake-holding trust company
When will there be a legal obligation in a charity context?
Where the sponsorship money notes/coins raised are held to belong to Ts of charity the money was raised for
Especially if they are deposited into a separate bank account!
I.e. moving proceeds to personal account would be appropriating the money for own purposes
If a legal obligation is shown, what is proved and what else still needs to be proved?
- Will show that property ‘belongs to another’
- Still need to deal with other elements of theft: dishonest appropriation and intention to permanently deprive!
Where property is given to D by mistake and civil law title passes, when will property ‘belong to another’?
E.g. overpays employee
When D is under a legal obligation to make restoration of property
When will D be under a legal obligation to make restoration?
Under law of restitution, when someone is aware they have acquired property by mistake, they are usually under a legal obligation to restore it
Will the person under obligation to make a restoration not be the legal owner of the money?
They will be - but property also belongs to another person (the overpayer)
In a situation where property is transferred by mistake, how is an intention to permanently deprive shown?
If there is an intention not to make restoration of the money
What might the bank retain where money is transferred by mistake?
Equitable interest
With the above cards considered, when can property belong to another?
Thus satisfy 3rd requirement of AR
- General provisions: control and possession, having proprietary right or interest
- Situations where title to property has passed to D before dishonest intent formed: must be a legal obligation to deal with property in particular way
- Situations where property given by mistake: D must be under legal obligation to make restoration