Reset Aggravated Theft Robbery Flashcards
what is reset
- crime of receiving stolen goods
- separate offence to theft
how did Hume define reset
involves taking or retaining possession of stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, with intention of keeping them from the owner
Actus Reus of Reset and factors surrounding it
- 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
what can also amount to reset
Knowledge about retaining of property that has been dishonestly come by also amounts to reset
case facts of HMA v Browne 1903
- 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
case facts of Clark v HMA 1965 (knowledge of ownership)
- Mere knowledge that the thief had stolen property wasn’t enough
- Connivance was required
case facts of McNeil v HMA 1968 (knowledge of ownership)
- 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
what is the mens rea of reset
- Knowledge that the goods were dishonestly obtained and
- Evidence of an intention to deprive the owner of the goods
case facts of Shannon v HMA 1985
- 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
what was held in Latta v Heron 1967
- A must have come to realise the guns in his property were stolen
- Inescapable inference from the circumstances
what was held in Forbes v HMA 1995
Circumstances of finding the stolen painting in a car inferred necessary knowledge for MR
what must the offences of aggravated theft be evidence of
- Intention or
- Actual theft
what happens if a ‘house’ is unlawfully entered and property is or isn’t stolen
- item of property is stolen = ‘theft by housebreaking’
- no items of property are stolen = ‘House breaking with intent to steal’
what must there be evidence of in regards to mode of entry
that the building was secure
case facts of Lafferty v Wilson (mode of entry)
- 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
case facts of Burns v Allan 1987 (Housebreaking with intent to steal)
- 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
case facts of Mason v Jessop 1990
- 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
case facts of HMA v Forbes 1994 (No crime of housebreaking with intent to commit other crimes)
- 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.
what is a Lockfast place
anything secured by lock and key
how can the offence of lock fast be done
- by stealth
- forcing open
definitions of robbery
- 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
factors of robbery
- 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
when does theft become robbery
all the elements of AR of theft, plus violence or threat of violence
case facts of Cromar v HMA 1987
- 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
factors of taking
- Can be by force
- By deliberately handing over
- Taking immediately when dropped
case facts of Harrison v Jessop 1992 (Lawful right to property doesn’t excuse robbery)
- Money taken from till in lieu of rent but taken against the will of the complainer
- There was a threat
- Money never returned
- Robbery
Mens rea of robbery
intention to deprive or to appropriate
case facts of Morrison v HMA 2010
- 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
factors of assault and robbery
- 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
