Property Offences Review Flashcards
Daniel picks up a watch from a shop display, places it in his pocket, and walks out without paying. Has he committed theft?
A. No, because he has not used the watch.
B. No, because he did not intend to permanently deprive the shop of the watch.
C. Yes, because he has assumed the rights of the owner.
D. Yes, but only if he later sells the watch.
C. Yes, because he has assumed the rights of the owner.
💡 Explanation:
Under s 3 Theft Act 1968, appropriation occurs when a person assumes any of the rights of the owner, such as taking, using, or selling an item. Taking the watch without permission satisfies this (R v Morris).
Maya lawfully enters a hotel but later sneaks into a restricted staff room and steals money. What offence has she committed?
A. No offence, because she was already inside lawfully.
B. Theft only, because she had permission to enter the hotel.
C. Burglary under s 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968.
D. Aggravated burglary, because she was inside the premises.
C. Burglary under s 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968.
💡 Explanation:
Under s 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968, burglary is committed if a person enters as a trespasser and then steals, attempts to steal, inflicts or attempts to inflict GBH. Maya became a trespasser when she entered a restricted area without permission (R v Jones & Smith).
Alex pushes a man to the ground and takes his wallet. What offence has he committed?
A. Theft, because no weapon was used.
B. Assault, because there was no intent to steal.
C. Burglary, because he took property.
D. Robbery, because he used force to steal.
D. Robbery, because he used force to steal.
💡 Explanation:
Under s 8 Theft Act 1968, robbery occurs when force or threat of force is used immediately before or at the time of stealing. Even minimal force, such as pushing, satisfies the force requirement (R v Dawson & James).
Tyler sells a car claiming it has no accidents when he knows it was recently damaged in a crash. What offence has he committed?
A. No offence, because the buyer should have checked the history.
B. Fraud by false representation under s 2 Fraud Act 2006.
C. Theft, because he dishonestly obtained money.
D. No offence, because he did not physically take the money.
B. Fraud by false representation under s 2 Fraud Act 2006.
💡 Explanation:
Under s 2 Fraud Act 2006, fraud occurs when a person makes a false representation with intent to gain or cause loss. Tyler’s misrepresentation was dishonest and financially motivated.
Sophie smashes a shop window to retrieve her phone that was stolen and placed inside. What is her best defence?
A. Self-defence.
B. Defence of necessity.
C. Lawful excuse under s 5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act 1971.
D. No defence, because she damaged property.
C. Lawful excuse under s 5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act 1971.
💡 Explanation:
Under s 5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act 1971, a person has a lawful excuse if they believe the owner would have consented to the damage. Since Sophie was retrieving her stolen phone, her belief may be reasonable.
Aidan finds a wallet on the street with a phone number inside. Instead of returning it, he keeps the money and throws the wallet away. Has he committed theft?
A. No, because the wallet was lost.
B. Yes, because he failed to take reasonable steps to find the owner.
C. No, because he did not steal it directly from a person.
D. Yes, but only if he used the owner’s bank card.
B. Yes, because he failed to take reasonable steps to find the owner.
💡 Explanation:
A person cannot assume property is abandoned just because it is lost. Under s 5 Theft Act 1968, property still belongs to another if the owner can be identified and the defendant fails to take reasonable steps to return it (R v Small).
Sophie smashes a car window to save a dog trapped inside on a hot day. What is the best defence?
A. Self-defence.
B. Defence of necessity.
C. Lawful excuse under s 5(2)(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971.
D. No defence, because property was damaged.
C. Lawful excuse under s 5(2)(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971.
💡 Explanation:
Sophie damaged property to protect another’s property (the dog). Under s 5(2)(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971, damage is lawful if done to protect property and is reasonable in the circumstances (R v Chamberlain).
Tom enters a convenience store with a knife. He threatens the cashier, takes money, and cuts the cashier’s hand while grabbing the cash. What offence has he committed?
A. Robbery under s 8 Theft Act 1968.
B. Burglary under s 9 Theft Act 1968.
C. Fraud under s 2 Fraud Act 2006.
D. Assault occasioning ABH under s 47 OAPA 1861.
A. Robbery under s 8 Theft Act 1968.
💡 Explanation:
Robbery occurs when theft is accompanied by force. Tom used force during the theft, and wounding the cashier does not change the classification—it remains robbery (R v Hale).
Zara borrows her friend’s laptop without permission but intends to return it after two days. Has she committed theft?
A. No, because she intended to return it.
B. Yes, if she treated it as her own.
C. No, because borrowing is not theft.
D. Yes, because she took possession of another’s property.
B. Yes, if she treated it as her own.
💡 Explanation:
Under s 6 Theft Act 1968, treating property as one’s own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights can amount to intention to permanently deprive, even if the defendant intends to return it later (R v Lloyd).
Mark is invited into a house party but later sneaks into a locked bedroom to steal. What is his legal status?
A. Lawful visitor, so no burglary.
B. Trespasser, because he exceeded his permission.
C. Not guilty, because he had general permission to be inside.
D. Guilty of theft but not burglary.
B. Trespasser, because he exceeded his permission.
💡 Explanation:
A person becomes a trespasser if they exceed the permission given (R v Jones & Smith). Mark entered with consent but trespassed when he entered a restricted area with dishonest intent.
