Property offences: Theft and robbery

Question 1

What is the definition of “Theft”?

Answer 1

Theft is defined in s1 Theft Act 1968 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

What is the order of the sections of theft?

Answer 2

1. Act 2, dishonestly, MR.
2. Act 3, appropriates, AR.
3. Act 4, property, AR.
4. Act 5, belonging to another, AR.
5. Act 6, intention of permanently depriving the other of it, MR.

Question 3

Actus Reus - Appropriation (s3)

Answer 3

The act of taking something or assuming one of the rights of the owner. It can involve physically picking up an item, destroying property, throwing items away, selling property, switching price labels, or giving worthless cheques in payment for goods.

Question 4

R V Vinall (2011)

Answer 4

D took the bike of the V using verbal and physical threats. Appropriation is satisfied because the initial taking of the bike and the intention of abandoning the bike has satisfied the AR and MR of theft.

Question 5

R V Pitman and Hehl (1977)

Answer 5

This shows appropriation by assuming the right to sell. The D offered furniture for sale not belonging to himself, only the owner has the right to sell.

Question 6

R V Morris (1983)

Answer 6

The D was still charged with appropriation even though he had not left the supermarket. he had taken when he switched the labels.

Question 7

Lawrence V CMP (1972)

Answer 7

An appropriation can still take place even though the owner has given permission, this is because the D used deception to get consent from the V.

Question 8

R V Gomez (1993)

Answer 8

Paying for goods with counterfeit money when the person selling thinks it is real/good so they consent.

Question 9

R V Hinks (2000)

Answer 9

The D used deception to withdraw £50k from the v and £300 every day, as the v had limited intelligence, he couldn’t apprehend what was happening. Money was given freely but deception was used, following Lawrence.

Question 10

R V Atakpu and Abrahams (1994)

Answer 10

The corporation that happened was under the jurisdiction of a non-English legal system, so it didn’t satisfy all the elements of theft.

Question 11

Can you assume the right of an owner at a later time?

Answer 11

You can assume the rights of the owner at a later time, your guilty of appropriation.

Question 12

Actus reus - Property (s4)

Answer 12

“property” can be money, real property, personal property, things in action, or other intangible property.

Question 13

R V Kelly and Lindsay (1998)

Answer 13

Body parts.

Question 14

R V Herbert (1961)

Answer 14

Hair.

Question 15

R V Rothery (1976)

Answer 15

Blood.

Question 16

R V Welsh (1974)

Answer 16

Urine.

Question 17

What is a “Thing in action”?

Answer 17

Covers (potentially non-tangible) things that you use with an agreement. Such as a bank account or a credit card.

Question 18

What is “other intangible property “?

Answer 18

Covers no physical presence but can be stolen for example electricity.

Question 19

Oxford V Moss (1979)

Answer 19

D, a university student, acquired proof of an exam paper he was due to sit. D had no intention of permanently depriving the university of the exam paper. He was charged with theft of confidential information, he wasn’t found guilty under the theft act.

Question 20

What is “Belonging to another”?

Answer 20

S. 5(1) Belonging to any person who has possessions or control of it, has a proprietary right or interest.

Question 21

Case: Turner No.2.

Answer 21

The garage had the right to possess the car until paid.

Question 22

Ricketts v Basildon Magistrate (2011).

Answer 22

Property left outside the door of a charity shop still belonged to the original owner until the charity shop took them in. This property hadn’t been abandoned.

Question 23

Case: Woodman (1974).

Answer 23

The owner still had a proprietary interest even though didn’t know metal was still there; they had secured the site to keep out trespassers. Even if the remaining scrap had been abandoned ownership still reverts to occupiers of the land.

Question 24

What does s. 5(3) say about property belonging to another if you use it for an unintended purpose.

Answer 24

Davidge v Benett (1984) - Money is given to pay the gas bill; used instead for Christmas presents. Held as used for unintended purpose.

Question 25

What does s. 5(4) say about proprietary interest?

Answer 25

Middleton (1873) - Where a person was paid by mistake, here by a post office clerk, a sum in excess of that properly payable, the person who accepted the overpayment with knowledge of the excess was guilty of theft.

Question 26

Case: Webster (2006) (Army)

Answer 26

A second medal was received by mistake. The army retained proprietary interest, D had no legal right to it so it should have been returned.

Question 27

What is the definition of Mens rea for theft?

Answer 27

"Dishonestly, and with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it." NOTE - The mens rea must be present at the time of the Act (Actus reus) took place.

Question 28

What are the exception of dishonesty (s2)?

Answer 28

1) Believes has right in law to deprive the other of it. Robinson (1977) - During a fight with her husband £5 dropped from husband pocket. D kept it. Conviction squashed; D honestly believed he had an honest right to the money. 2) Believes he would have the other consent. 3) Believes the owner cant be discovered with reasonable steps. Small (1987) - There is no requirement that the D's belief is reasonable so it was immaterial that a reasonable person would have to contact the DVLA to discover the owner of the "abandoned" car.

Question 29

How do we establish "dishonesty"?

Answer 29

Use the test from Ivey v Genting casinos (2017) (R V Barton and Booth.) Ascertain D's knowledge or belief of the facts - (what did D know?) Knowing what D knew, were his actions dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary, decent people?

Question 30

Intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Answer 30

S. 6(1) - Intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of; borrowing or lending ... for a certain period and in circumstances making it equivalent. Velumyl (1989) - Company director took money from the safe, he was planning to return it but ended up being caught, he was convicted because it isn't the same bank notes. He intended to permanently deprive the company of the money.

Question 31

Case: DPP v J (2002)

Answer 31

Headphones returned broken so didn't retain goodness, virtue and practical value - Intended to permanently deprive.

Question 32

Case: Lloyd (1985)

Answer 32

Film returned undamaged so there was no intent to permanently deprive.

Question 33

Case: Easom (1971)

Answer 33

D picked up a handbag to see if there was anything worth stealing, there wasnt, D wasnt convicted of theft because there was no intent to permantly deprive only conditional intent.

Question 34

State the s8 of the theft act (robbery).

Answer 34

"A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force." Must have all the elements of theft for it to be a robbery.

Question 35

What are the 3 extra elements for robbery?

Answer 35

1) Using force or threat of force. 2) Immediately before or at the time of the theft. 3) use of force in order to steal.

Question 36

Case: Dawson and James (1976)

Answer 36

Normal meaning of forced used - for the jury to decide whether force was used.

Question 37

Case: Clouden (1987)

Answer 37

The force used on the bag was sufficient to amount to force on a person.

Question 38

Case: Hale (1978)

Answer 38

Appropriation of jewellery was a continuing act; it is up to the jury to decide whether the act has finished so force was deemed at the time of theft.

Question 39

Case: Lockley (1995)

Answer 39

The defendant had been caught shoplifting by a security guard. He used force on the security guard in order to escape. He was convicted of robbery and appealed. Held: Appeal dismissed. Hale was still good law and and appropriation is a continuing act. Force used in order to escape is thus treated as force used in order to steal and his conviction was upheld.

Question 40

Name on exception of robbery in order to steal?

Answer 40

If the force and the theft are unrelated, A pushed B over then sees his phone fall from his pocket then this is battery and theft.

Question 41

What is the contemporaneity rule?

Answer 41

All aspects of the theft act or the robbery must occur at the same time.