Reset Aggravated Theft Robbery

Question 1

what is reset

Answer 1

• crime of receiving stolen goods
• separate offence to theft

Question 2

how did Hume define reset

Answer 2

involves taking or retaining possession of stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, with intention of keeping them from the owner

Question 3

Actus Reus of Reset and factors surrounding it

Answer 3

• A must receive or retain property, or know about its retention by a third party
• Full control of property isn’t necessary
• Property must be acquired by theft, robbery, fraud or embezzlement
• Personal handling not needed for possession

Question 4

what can also amount to reset

Answer 4

Knowledge about retaining of property that has been dishonestly come by also amounts to reset

Question 5

case facts of HMA v Browne 1903

Answer 5

• A knew money was stolen and knew where it was hidden
• Reset involves being aware that stolen property is being kept, knowing it is stolen
• Not required to prove that the accused personally had possession of the property

Question 6

case facts of Clark v HMA 1965 (knowledge of ownership)

Answer 6

• Mere knowledge that the thief had stolen property wasn’t enough
• Connivance was required

Question 7

case facts of McNeil v HMA 1968 (knowledge of ownership)

Answer 7

• A found in a car containing stolen goods and was convicted of reset
• A ‘knew’ the stolen goods were being withheld from the owner
• charge is reset

Question 8

what is the mens rea of reset

Answer 8

• Knowledge that the goods were dishonestly obtained and
• Evidence of an intention to deprive the owner of the goods

Question 9

case facts of Shannon v HMA 1985

Answer 9

• Actions were consistent with knowledge of illegal possession of a weapon
• But insufficient to infer knowledge weapon was stolen
• Person who receives stolen goods may not necessarily be guilty of reset, - IF they don’t intend to detain them from the owner

Question 10

what was held in Latta v Heron 1967

Answer 10

• A must have come to realise the guns in his property were stolen
• Inescapable inference from the circumstances

Question 11

what was held in Forbes v HMA 1995

Answer 11

Circumstances of finding the stolen painting in a car inferred necessary knowledge for MR

Question 12

what must the offences of aggravated theft be evidence of

Answer 12

• Intention or
• Actual theft

Question 13

what happens if a ‘house’ is unlawfully entered and property is or isn’t stolen

Answer 13

• item of property is stolen = ‘theft by housebreaking’
• no items of property are stolen = ‘House breaking with intent to steal’

Question 14

what must there be evidence of in regards to mode of entry

Answer 14

that the building was secure

Question 15

case facts of Lafferty v Wilson (mode of entry)

Answer 15

• Charged with breaking into an unoccupied building with intent to steal
• Court not entitled to infer the building was secure, as there were frequent break ins, and so conviction was quashed

Question 16

case facts of Burns v Allan 1987 (Housebreaking with intent to steal)

Answer 16

• A attempted to disable alarm
  Fled before entering premises
• Held that evidence was sufficient to infer an intention to enter with intent to steal
• A had been found with tools escaping from scene after alarm went off

Question 17

case facts of Mason v Jessop 1990

Answer 17

• A broke into a church to find somewhere to sit
• NO MR of intention to steal
• Intent to steal couldn’t be inferred from evidence led

Question 18

case facts of HMA v Forbes 1994 (No crime of housebreaking with intent to commit other crimes)

Answer 18

• Charged of housebreaking with intent to commit assault and rape
• No offence exists
• Entering a house or simply forming the intention to commit a crime is not itself a criminal act.
• There is no offense of “housebreaking with intent to commit other crimes” unless the crime is actually carried out.

Question 19

what is a Lockfast place

Answer 19

anything secured by lock and key

Question 20

how can the offence of lock fast be done

Answer 20

• by stealth
• forcing open

Question 21

definitions of robbery

Answer 21

• Theft accomplished by means of personal violence or intimidation
• Robbery is deliberately taking moveable and corporeal property from another by force, and against their will with violence or a fear of violence

Question 22

factors of robbery

Answer 22

• Robbery is theft accomplished by means of personal violence or intimidation
• Robbery is the deliberate taking of moveable and corporeal property from another by force and against their will
• MR for robbery is uncertain, case law wouldn’t require ‘evil intent’ needed for assault
• Violence must be linked to theft

Question 23

when does theft become robbery

Answer 23

all the elements of AR of theft, plus violence or threat of violence

Question 24

case facts of Cromar v HMA 1987

Answer 24

• handbag snatching
• No need for direct or extreme violence to the person, but must be an immediate fear of injury
• Must be such as to overcome passive, active and voluntary resistance

Question 25

factors of taking

Answer 25

• Can be by force
• By deliberately handing over
• Taking immediately when dropped

Question 26

case facts of Harrison v Jessop 1992 (Lawful right to property doesn’t excuse robbery)

Answer 26

• Money taken from till in lieu of rent but taken against the will of the complainer
• There was a threat
• Money never returned
• Robbery

Question 27

Mens rea of robbery

Answer 27

intention to deprive or to appropriate

Question 28

case facts of Morrison v HMA 2010

Answer 28

• A charged with assault and robbery
• Charge of assault deleted from indictment
• But evidence of crime pointed to sufficient violence to constitute robbery
• Violence used to get V’s robbery

Question 29

factors of assault and robbery

Answer 29

• An assault, which results in A possessing property of V, raises a presumption that MR for robbery exists
• Must be evidence of assault in the evidence, but not essential that assault charge is satisfied to prove robbery charge