PROPERTY OOFFENCES Flashcards
Theft act 1968
a person guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the the other of it
Actus reus
– Appropriates S 3
– Property S 4
– Belonging to another S 5
* Mens rea
– Dishonestly S 2
– Intention of permanently deprive
Land
Land cannot be stolen, except when
a) Trustee/personal representative sells
/disposes land belonging to another;
b) Person not in possession of the land
appropriates anything forming part of the land;
c) Tenant in possession of the land appropriates
the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to
be used with the land;
* Things which are part of the land:
– Things which grow on it: e.g. trees
– Permanent structures: e.g. garden shed
– Integral parts of a structure/fixture: e.g. roof
tiles
* Plants and fruits S 4(3): no theft unless D
picks for commercial purposes
Bodies/body part
Traditional view: not property
* Sharpe (1857) D & B 160
* Recently challenged
* Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009]
- Some exceptions
– Bodies in possession/control - E.g. bodies in a hospital
– Bodily products in possession/control - E.g. urine, semen
- Welsh [1974] RTR 550, Rothery [1976]
– Bodies/body parts over which someone
exercised special skills - R v Kelly [1999]
other property
Wild creatures: property only if
tamed, in captivity or trapped S 4(4)
* Gas and water are property
–White (1853) 169 ER 696
–Ferens v O’Brien (1883)
* Information is not property
– Oxford v Moss (1979)
* Electricity: specific offence S 13
Appropriation
section 3(1)
any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation
Lawrence v MPC 1972
- defendant taxi driver climed he hadn’t appropriated an excess dare because the victim offered his wallet
held:still appropriation despite consent
R v MORRIS1984
- the defendant swapped the price on a joint of pork
held: assuming one riht was enough and as this was adverse to the owners wishes it was appropriation
R V GOMEZ1993
- the defendant enticed his manager to accept a fake cheque from a customer in return for goods
held: there was appropriation consent was irrelevant
R v PITHAM AND HEHL1977
- the defendants invited others to flat of a colleague who was at prison
invited to buy what they wanted
held: offering to sell was sufficient to amount to appropriation as that was a right of an owner tey had assumed
R v HINKS 2000
befriended a man of low intelligence but significant weath , each day he would coerce £300 fro bank and give to her- no savings
held: gift could amount to appropriation
Property
S4: includes money and all other property, real or personal including things in action and other intangible property
OXFORD V MOSS 1979
held: information or a secret is not of itsaelf property
R V SHARP 1987
recognises no property in a corpse
R v Kelly & Lindsay1998
- stole brain and heads from college of surgeons
held: convicted of theft
Belonging to another
S5
1) property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having any propietrary right or interest
R v Turner 1971:
drove his car away from garage with spare keys before paying for repairs
held: he had stolen his own car
Marshall 2000- law of property applies
Abandoned property does not belong to anyone,
unless someone has control on it
– Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142
S5(2) Trusts: property belongs to those who have a
right to enforce the trust
saunders v vautier 1841
S5(3): under obligarion to another to retain and deal with that property, or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or other proceeds shall be regarded as belonging tothe other
R v Wain 1995
D’s bank balance collected for a charity fell within the ambit of s5(3) and was regarded as belonging to another
R v Hall1973
D’s bank balance collected as a deposit towards a holiday did not fall within the ambit of s5(3)
S5(4): Where a person gets property by anothers mistake,, is under an obligation to make restoration or of its proceeds or of the value theoreof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds sall be regarded as belonging to the person entitled
AG ref No1 1983
- wpc overpaid £74 by cash transfer and was initially charged with theft
- she was later acquitted but as a point of law it was held that under s5(4) mobey would be regarded as still to thepolice
Intent to permanently deprive
S6(1): if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of others rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or diposal
R v Marshall 1968
the defendant collected old travel cards and sold
held:this was treating them as his own to dispose of tfl rights and IPD- says it remained tfl’s
DPP v Lavender 1994
removed door from one council property and fitted it to his GFS council property
held: despite the fact that th door remained the councilds, he had treated it as his own to dispose of regardless of council rights
R V Lloyd 1985
borrowed film reels from Odeon and copied and returned them
held: not theft and just borrowed
R v Velumyl 1989
borrowed £1000 from a safe and lent it to a friend- and to return mon then to work
held: returning similiar would still be IPD- disposed of original property
R v Fernandes 1996
solicitor who used client funds to make investments
held: risking the loss of anothers property is using it as your own to dispose IPD
R v Easom 1971
- sat in a cinema leaving an open handbag in an adjacent seat
- Easom went through the handbag and then left having taken nothing from it
held: the was no theft. a conditional intent to steal if there is anything worth stealing is insufficent to show IPD
R v Raphael 2006
D and others took the victim’s car and demanded that he pay £500 for its return
their defence was that they fully intended to return the property
held: applying a condition to return of another’s property, such as a ransom, amounted to an IPD
S(2) parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform
DISHONESTY
s2 (1) a persons appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest-
a) belief that he has in law the right
b) belief that he would have the other’s consent
c) belief that person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable
R v Small 1998
abandoned a car that was stolen when pursued by police
parked every day for 2 weeks and not moved
held: belief the car had been abandoned had to be genuine not reasonable
Ivey v Genting casinos 2017
refused to pay £7.7 million that he had won playing a game
the odds favour the casino a tiny bit
ivey used edge sorting to swing the odds substantially in his favour
on whether there was cheating and he did not believe he was acting dishonestly
held:
knowing what D knew factually were Ds actions dshonest by the standard of ordinary people
Criminal damage
Criminal Damage Act 1971:
Five criminal damage offences
- basic criminal damage
arson
aggravated criminal damage
aggravated arson
Racially aggravated criminal damage
S1 CD: a person who without lawful excuse detroys or damages any property belonging ti another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless.
DAMAGE
minimal damage
- A v r 1978
Gayford v Chouler 1898
adding to property Lloyd v dpp 1992
Hardman v CC of Avon and somer set 1986
Property
S10(1)
- property of a tangible nature
real land or personal not land
including money, wild creature tamed not mushrooms ir flowers
Similar but different than in theft s4(1) theft act 1968
-land can be damaged but not stolen
intangible property can be stolen but not damaged
Belonging to another
s10(2)
belonging to any person having a- custody or control of it
b- any proprietary right or interest in it
c- having a charge on it
specific defences
S 5(2) CDA:
* Belief of consent
* Protection of D’s or another’s property or
right/interest in property with belief that
– Immediate need for protection
– Means of protection were reasonable
* Honesty is enough: no need for belief to be
reasonable
* Highly subjective defence but…
* …courts took narrow and objective
interpretation
– Hunt (1978)
– R v Hill and Hall (1989
Handling
S 22 Theft Act 1968:
* Actus Reus:
– Receiving stolen goods or
– Undertaking/Assisting in/Arranging for
their retention, removal, disposal, or realisation by/for the benefit of another
– Not in the course of the stealing
* Mens Rea:
– Knowing or believing them to be stolen goods
– Dishonestly
Handling stolen goods
S 34(2)(b)Theft Act 1968:
* Goods include
– Any property
– Except land
* Must be stolen
– Prosecution needs to prove they are stolen
– No need to prove who stole
– They are still stolen even if the thief
has an excuse and is not guilty
* Forsyth [1997]
handling conduct
Criminalised behaviours:
1. Receiving the property
2. Undertaking:
a) Retention
b) Removal
c) Disposal
d) Realisation
Of the goods by another or for another’s
benefit
3. Assisting in a), b) or c)
* Normal meaning can be used
receiving
Involves taking goods into one’s own possession/control
* D must be therefore aware he has
possession/control
– Hobson v Impett (1957)
If D becomes aware later on, this is retention
– Pitchley (1973)
Touching is not receiving
– Hobson v Impett
assisting
Involves help or encouragement
* Lying to the police about the
premises of stolen goods?
– Contradictory decisions
* Yes: Kanwar (1982)
No: Brown (1970)
Using the property that another is retaining is not enough
– Sanders (1982)
Handling: other elements
By or for the benefit of another
* Does not apply for receiving
* Selling to another is not for
another’s benefit
– R v Bloxham [1983]
“Otherwise than in the course of
stealing”
* Thieves can be handlers but this
requires a further act than stealing
– Bossom [1999]
handling mens rea
Knowledge or Belief goods are stolen
* Subjective test
– Atwal v Massey [1971]
* Ordinary meaning
– Forsyth
* Suspicion is not enough: defendant must conclude
goods are stolen
– Forsyth
Dishonesty
* Ghosh test used to apply
* Was what D did dishonest according to the standards of
reasonable and honest people?
– Would D realise that?
* Now Ivey v Ghenting Casinos is the test [2017]
- Difficult to prove honesty
Robbery
S8(1) a person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing 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
R v Robinson 1977
- robinson was owed £7 by the victims wife
- when he went to collect it, a fight developed between robinson and the victim and he dropped £5 and he grabbed it and kept
held: robinson was convinced the money was his meaning he ws not being dishonest S2(1)(a)
if he wasnt guilty of theft he couldnt be of robber
forrester 1992 and use of threat
use of force
S8(1)
R v DAWSON and JAMES 1976
- two people stood on each side of a sailor
- nudged him to put him off balance whilst a third pick pocketed
- 2 robbery
insufficent force
held:without the force the theft could not have happened
R V CLOUDEN1987
- Followed a woman home and wrenched the bag out her grasp
held: appeal dismissed and Dawson and james was followed - force and appropriation could be one and the same
R V DONAGHY & MARSHALL 1981
- threatened a minicab driver into driving them to London and stole cash when leaving cab
held: the jury acquitted the defendants of robber. the threat had been used to secure their ride to london and not in order to steal
R V BENTHAM 2005
- broke into his former employee house and pretended that he had a gun and demanded jewellery
held: acquitted of a firearm but convicted of robbery. the threat of force was enough and did not matter that he could not carry out the threat
COCORAN V ANDERTON 1980
- grabbed handbag from victim after one had struck her in the back- she and the bag fell but her screams caused the people to flee. - no control of bag
held: occured as soon as the appropriation taken place
COINCIDENCE OF THEFT AND USE OF FORCE
R V HALE 1979
D forced their way into a house and held hand over mouth while other went to grab stuff
held: both the force prior to the theft and after could be considered when deciding if its robbery
R V LOCKLEY 1995
set out to steal some beer from shop, tried to stop him after he grabbed the beer. force used after
held: r v hale continuing act
