Property Offences Flashcards
1
Q
What does the Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 1(1) state?
A
A person who without lawful excuse damages or destroys any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
2
Q
What is the maximum sentence for basic criminal damage?
A
The maximum sentence is ten years’ imprisonment.
3
Q
What are the five parts of the basic criminal damage offence?
A
- Destroy or damage
- Property
- Belonging to another
- Without lawful excuse
- Intention or recklessness as to the damage or destruction of property belonging to another
4
Q
What does ‘destroy’ mean in the context of criminal damage?
A
The term ‘destroy’ means that following D’s actions, the property ceases to exist.
5
Q
What is the significance of Samuels v Stubbs [1972]?
A
The court held that damage must be guided by the circumstances of each case, the nature of the article, and the mode by which it was affected.
6
Q
Does damage need to be permanent
A
The court held that damage need not be permanent, and it was relevant that time, effort, and money had been spent in restoring the pavement to its original state.
7
Q
What constitutes damage according to Morphitis v Salmon [1990]?
A
Criminal damage includes not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness.
8
Q
What does section 10(1) of the CDA 1971 define as ‘property’?
A
Property means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money and certain wild creatures.
9
Q
How is property defined as belonging to another under section 10(2)?
A
Property shall be treated as belonging to any person having custody or control of it, having any proprietary right or interest, or having a charge on it.
10
Q
What is the mens rea for basic criminal damage?
A
The mens rea is the intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another.
11
Q
What does the CDA 1971, s 1(3) state about arson?
A
Any offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.
12
Q
What are the lawful excuse defences under section 5(2) CDA 1971?
A
- D believes the owner would have consented to the damage.
- D acts to protect their or another’s property.
13
Q
Does a belief of the owners consent need to be reasonable
A
No
The court held that the defendant was entitled to the defence under CDA 1971, s 5(2)(a), irrespective of whether the belief was reasonable.
14
Q
What are the four requirements for the section 5(2)(b) defence - acting to Protect your’s or another’s property
A
- D must act to protect property.
- D must believe that the property was in immediate need of protection.
- D must believe that the means of protection adopted are reasonable.
- The damage caused by D must be objectively capable of protecting the property.
15
Q
When protecting property must the act be objectively capable of protecting the property?
A
Yes
The court held that it was not sufficient that the accused intended to prevent further damage; the act must also be objectively capable of protecting the property.
16
Q
Are general defences available to criminal damage
A
Yes
It preserves the availability of general defences to criminal offences such as self-defence and duress.
17
Q
What is aggravated criminal damage?
A
Aggravated criminal damage is defined under section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, where a person destroys or damages property intending to endanger life or being reckless as to whether life would be endangered.
18
Q
What constitutes the actus reus of aggravated criminal damage?
A
The actus reus involves destroying or damaging property by fire.
19
Q
What is the mens rea for aggravated criminal damage?
A
The mens rea includes intention or recklessness regarding the destruction or damage of property and the endangerment of life.
20
Q
Can a defendant commit aggravated criminal damage to their own property?
A
Yes, a defendant can commit aggravated criminal damage to their own property.
21
Q
Do lawful excuse defenses apply in aggravated criminal damage?
A
The lawful excuse defenses in the CDA 1971 do not apply, but a defendant may have a lawful excuse if general defenses to criminal offenses apply.
22
Q
Does life actually have to be endangered R v Sangha?
A
In R v Sangha, it was held that the issue is whether the accused intended or was reckless as to whether life might have been endangered, not whether life was actually endangered.
23
Q
Does recklessness refer to the damage intended or damage caused by
A
The Court of Appeal ruled that the recklessness referred to the destruction or damage intended, not the actual damage caused.
24
Q
What must be established regarding danger to life in aggravated criminal damage?
A
Danger to life must arise from the damaged property, not from the means of damaging it.
25
What is the definition of theft according to the Theft Act 1968?
A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
26
What are the five elements required to prove theft?
The prosecution must prove appropriation, property, belonging to another, dishonesty, and intention to permanently deprive.
27
What constitutes appropriation under the Theft Act 1968?
Appropriation is any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner.
28
Can a defendant appropriate property with the owner's consent?
Yes, a defendant can appropriate property even with the consent of the owner, as established in R v Gomez.
29
What was the outcome of R v Hinks regarding gifts?
The House of Lords held that appropriation is a neutral act and can occur with or without the consent of the owner, allowing for theft of a valid inter vivos gift.
30
What does section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 define as property?
Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
31
What are the exceptions to property that cannot be stolen?
Exceptions include wild plants and animals, electricity, corpses and body parts under certain conditions, and services.
32
What does section 5 of the Theft Act 1968 state about property belonging to another?
Property is regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest.
33
Can you steal your own property?
No, as established in R v Turner, a person cannot steal their own property if it is in the possession of another.
34
What is the significance of section 5(3) of the Theft Act 1968?
Section 5(3) applies when property is handed over for a particular purpose, and the accused is under a legal obligation to use it for that purpose.
35
What was the ruling in R v Hall regarding legal obligation?
The Court of Appeal held that section 5(3) did not apply because it was not established that clients expected their money to be used for purchasing airline tickets.
36
What does section 5(1) cover?
Section 5(1) covers equitable interests.
37
When will a legal obligation be found?
A legal obligation may be found based on the expectations of the parties involved.
38
What was the outcome of R v Hall [1972]?
The Court of Appeal held that there was no legal obligation as clients did not expect their money to be kept separately.
39
What was the outcome of Davidge v Bunnett [1984]?
The defendant's conviction for theft was upheld as she was under a legal obligation to pay the gas bill.
40
What does section 5(4) state about property obtained by mistake?
When aware of a mistake, one is under a legal obligation to restore the property.
41
What does section 5(1) state about property belonging to another?
Property is regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it.
42
What case illustrates that property is not readily found abandoned?
Williams v Phillips illustrates that domestic waste belongs to the householder until collected.
43
What is required to control property found on your land?
You must demonstrate intention to exercise control, either expressly or impliedly.
44
What does section 5(3) require for a legal obligation?
Property must be given for a particular purpose and the defendant must be under a legal obligation to deal with it accordingly.
45
What is the significance of R v Klineberg and Marsden?
There was a legal obligation to deal with timeshare purchasers' property as express assurances were given.
46
What is the common law test for dishonesty?
The test requires assessing the defendant's knowledge and belief, and whether their conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards.
47
What does section 2(2) state about willingness to pay?
A person can appropriate property dishonestly, even if willing to pay for it.
48
What does section 6(1) state about intention to permanently deprive?
Intention to treat property as one's own to dispose of, regardless of others' rights, amounts to intention to permanently deprive.
49
What case reviewed the intention to permanently deprive?
R v Vinall reviewed the necessary state of mind for intention to permanently deprive.
50
What did R v Lloyd establish about borrowing?
Borrowing can amount to an intention to permanently deprive if it is equivalent to an outright taking.
51
What does section 6(2) state about conditions on property return?
Parting with property under a condition for return that may not be performed is treated as intending to permanently deprive.
52
What was the outcome of R v Velumyl?
Intending to return equivalent value does not negate the intention to permanently deprive of the original property.
53
What is the key element of mens rea in theft?
Intention to permanently deprive.
54
Does the Theft Act 1968, section 6 define intention to permanently deprive?
No, it does not define intention to permanently deprive.
55
What should be considered when intention to permanently deprive is not clear?
The provisions of section 6 and case law.
56
What does section 6(1) state about intention to treat property?
An intention to treat the thing as their own to dispose of regardless of others' rights amounts to an intention to permanently deprive.
57
What is the dictionary definition of 'to dispose of'?
'To deal with definitely: to get rid of; to get done with, finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell.'
## Footnote
Example: R v Cahill.
58
What is an example of attempting to sell the owner's property?
The defendant attempting to sell the owner their own property.
## Footnote
Example: R v Scott.
59
What does it mean to use the owner's property for bargaining?
Using the owner’s property for ransom cases.
## Footnote
Example: R v Raphael.
60
What does rendering property useless imply?
It implies an intention to permanently deprive.
## Footnote
Example: DPP v J.
61
What does it mean to treat property in a manner that risks its loss?
It indicates an intention to permanently deprive.
## Footnote
Example: R v Fernandes.
62
What is required beyond 'dealing with' in terms of intention?
More than 'dealing with' is required.
## Footnote
Example: R v Vinall.
63
What does borrowing or lending imply in the context of theft?
It can be equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
## Footnote
Example: R v Lloyd.
64
What does section 6(2) of the Theft Act 1968 state?
A person who parts with property under a condition for its return may not be able to perform that condition.
65
What does 'coincidence' refer to in the context of theft?
All of the elements must exist simultaneously.
66
What is robbery according to the Theft Act 1968, s 8?
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals and uses force or puts someone in fear of force immediately before or at the time of stealing.
## Footnote
The penalty for robbery is imprisonment for life.
67
What are the actus reus elements of robbery?
1. Actus reus of theft
2. Force (uses force, puts in fear, or seeks to put in fear)
3. On any person
4. Use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing.
68
What is the mens rea of robbery?
The defendant must intend to use force in order to steal.
69
What principle does R v Robinson illustrate?
If there is no theft, there can be no robbery.
70
What are the three ways to satisfy the force or threat of force element in robbery?
1. Uses force
2. Puts a person in fear of being subjected to force
3. Seeks to put a person in fear of being subjected to force.
71
How is 'force' defined in the context of robbery?
Force is not defined in the TA 1968; it is a matter of fact for the jury whether the defendant's actions amount to force.
72
What did R v Dawson and James establish about force?
The court held that force does not require violence; ordinary actions can constitute force.
73
What does R v Clouden say about force applied through property?
Force used against property can count as force on the person if it causes force against the person.
74
What did P & Others v DPP determine about indirect contact?
There was no force as there was no direct contact or significant evidence of resistance from the victim.
75
What does it mean to put a person in fear in robbery?
A threat causing a person to think that force will be used against them is sufficient, regardless of whether they actually fear it.
76
What does R v Taylor illustrate about seeking to put a person in fear?
The defendant can be liable even if the person is unaware of the threat, as long as the intent to instill fear is present.
77
What is the significance of the element 'on any person' in robbery?
The threat or use of force does not have to be directed at the person from whom the property is stolen.
78
What is the requirement for the use or threat of force in relation to stealing?
The force or threat must occur immediately before or at the time of stealing.
79
What is the mens rea requirement for robbery?
The defendant must act with the mens rea of theft and intend to use force in order to steal.
80
What does the Theft Act 1968, s 9 define as burglary?
A person is guilty of burglary if they enter a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, inflict grievous bodily harm, or damage property.
81
What are the requirements for s 9(1)(a) burglary?
1. Enter as a trespasser
2. Have intent to commit theft, inflict grievous bodily harm, or damage property.
82
What are the requirements for s 9(1)(b) burglary?
1. Enter as a trespasser
2. Steal or attempt to steal, or inflict or attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm once inside.
83
What does R v Ryan establish about entry in burglary?
Partial presence is sufficient for entry; it does not matter if the defendant is physically able to steal.
84
What is the definition of 'building' under the Theft Act 1968?
'Building' includes inhabited vehicles or vessels, whether the occupant is present or not.
85
What did R v Walkington determine about entering part of a building?
What constitutes a part of a building is a question of fact for the jury.
86
How can a defendant enter as a trespasser?
1. Without consent
2. In excess of authority.
87
What is the mens rea for s 9(1)(a) burglary?
The defendant must know or be reckless as to being a trespasser and intend to commit one of the ulterior offences at the time of entry.
88
What does it mean to be reckless as to the facts which make someone a trespasser?
It refers to acting in excess of permission.
89
What must be proved for a defendant to be guilty under s 9(2) TA 1968?
It must be proved that upon entry, the defendant intended to commit one of the ulterior offences listed in s 9(2), such as theft, GBH, or unlawful damage.
90
What is conditional intent in the context of burglary?
Conditional intent occurs when a defendant intends to look inside a property and only steal items they deem worth taking. This has been held to count as an intention in AG's References (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979).
91
What are the five elements required to secure a conviction under s 9(1)(b) TA 1968?
1. The defendant entered. 2. A building or part of a building. 3. As a trespasser. 4. Knowing or being reckless as to entry as a trespasser. 5. The defendant committed or attempted to commit theft or GBH.
92
When is the offence of s 9(1)(b) burglary committed?
It is committed once the defendant, having entered as a trespasser, goes on to commit theft or GBH or attempts to commit these offences.
93
What must a defendant do once inside a building to establish s 9(1)(b) burglary?
The defendant must commit or attempt to commit theft or inflict or attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm.
94
What is required for aggravated burglary under the Theft Act 1968, section 10?
A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if they commit any burglary and have with them a firearm, imitation firearm, weapon of offence, or explosive at the time.
95
What does 'weapon of offence' mean in the context of aggravated burglary?
'Weapon of offence' means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person.
96
What is the maximum penalty for fraud under the Fraud Act 2006?
The maximum penalty is ten years in prison or an unlimited fine if tried on indictment.
97
What constitutes fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006?
A person is in breach if they dishonestly make a false representation intending to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause loss to another or expose them to a risk of loss.
98
What is required for a representation to be considered false under the Fraud Act 2006?
A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading.
99
Can a representation be express or implied?
Yes, a representation can be made expressly or impliedly.
100
What case illustrates that silence cannot amount to a representation?
R v Twaite demonstrates that pure silence, without an accompanying action, cannot amount to a representation.
101
What does the case Smith v Land and House Property Corporation state about statements of opinion?
A statement of opinion by someone who knows the facts best may involve a statement of material fact.
102
What does the case DPP v Ray illustrate regarding false representation of intention?
It illustrates that if a defendant states an intention to do something they do not intend to do, it amounts to a false representation.
103
What can a false representation amount to?
It may amount to a false representation of the other party's belief or opinion.
104
What is the state of mind required in DPP v Ray?
The state of mind can relate to an intention, where a defendant states an intention they do not actually have.
105
What was the implication in DPP v Ray regarding the respondent's conduct?
It was implied that the respondent would pay for his meal before leaving, which was a false representation of his intention.
106
What does FA 2006, s 2(2)(a) state about false representations?
The issue of whether a representation is untrue is a fact for the jury to determine, and a false representation can be untrue or misleading.
107
What was the case of R v Silverman about?
It involved a builder overcharging elderly sisters, where the court implied a false representation regarding the fairness of the charge.
108
What did Watkins LJ note about the victims in R v Silverman?
He described them as 'far from worldly wise' and 'unquestionably gullible', indicating vulnerability as a factor in overcharging fraud.
109
What was the outcome in R v Jones (1993)?
The defendant was convicted of obtaining property by deception for overcharging a purchaser who regarded him as a friend.
110
What are the three aspects of mens rea for fraud by false representation?
1. Dishonesty; 2. Mens rea for the false statement; 3. Intention to make a gain or cause a loss.
111
What is the test for dishonesty according to Ivey v Genting Casinos?
The test involves two questions: (i) What was the defendant's knowledge and belief as to the facts? (ii) Was the defendant dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
112
What must the defendant know regarding false representations?
The defendant must know or be aware that the statement is untrue or misleading.
113
What did R v Staines (1974) establish about recklessness?
Recklessness regarding a false statement requires more than carelessness; there must be indifference to whether a statement is true or false.
114
What is the mens rea requirement regarding intention to make a gain or cause a loss?
The defendant must intend to make a gain for themselves, for someone else, intend to cause a loss to another, or expose someone to a risk of loss.
115
What is the summary of fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006?
Key elements include actus reus of false representation (express or implied) and mens rea of dishonesty, mens rea for the false statement, and intention to make a gain or cause a loss.
116
What is fraud by failure to disclose?
Fraud by failure to disclose is defined in the FA 2006, s 3, where a person dishonestly fails to disclose information they are legally obligated to disclose, intending to make a gain or cause a loss.
117
What are the key elements of the actus reus in fraud by failure to disclose?
The actus reus requires the existence of a legal duty to disclose and a failure to disclose the information.
118
What types of legal duties can give rise to a duty to disclose?
Duties can arise from statute, transactions of utmost good faith, express or implied terms of a contract, customs in a trade, or fiduciary relationships.
119
What is an example of a legal duty arising from a contract?
In R v Razoq [2012], a doctor failed to disclose disciplinary proceedings as required by his contract with a locum agency, leading to a conviction under s 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.
120
What is the mens rea for fraud by failure to disclose?
The mens rea includes dishonesty, assessed using the test from Ivey v Genting Casinos, and the intention to make a gain or cause a loss.
121
What does 'gain' and 'loss' mean under the Fraud Act 2006?
'Gain' and 'loss' refer to financial benefits or detriments, including temporary or permanent changes in property ownership.
122
What is fraud by abuse of position?
Fraud by abuse of position is defined in FA 2006, s 4, where a person in a position of trust dishonestly abuses that position to gain or cause loss.
123
What are the actus reus elements of fraud by abuse of position?
The actus reus requires occupying a position expected to safeguard another's financial interests and abusing that position.
124
What relationships can constitute a position of trust?
Positions can include trustee-beneficiary, director-company, professional-client, agent-principal, employee-employer, or even familial or voluntary relationships.
125
Can fraud by abuse of position occur through omission?
Yes, fraud by abuse of position can be committed by omission, such as failing to collect payment on behalf of an employer.
126
What are the mens rea elements for fraud by abuse of position?
The mens rea includes dishonesty, assessed using the Ivey v Genting Casinos test, and the intention to make a gain or cause a loss.
