Sem5 Property Offences Flashcards
All property offences are statutory offences —» u can always look to a statute in order to find out what their parameters are
Theft - Theft Act 1968 s1: “[dishonestly—MR] appropriating the property of someone else (Actus Reus) w no intention to give it back(Mens Rea)”
So Actus Reus = appropriating the property of someone else. Don’t need to show causation bc it’s the actual appropriation that is the crime (Conduct crime)
Mens Rea = appropriation must be dishonest, must be INTENTIONAL, and must not be intending to give property back (must be permanently depriving vic of it)
What is the test for Dishonesty? ( how to determine D was acting dishonestly)
Ivy Test(?) (adapted from the Gosh case subjective test)
— requires (1) that D have knowledge or belief that what they’re appropriating is someone else’s property,
— & (2) that an honest, reasonable person would see the appropriation as dishonest
**tough to prove, bc D could always just say they didn’t think they were being dishonest
Before applying Ivy test, always consider s2 of Theft Act, & if any of the circs there exist
- (1) if D believed they had consent of owner to appropriate the property
- (2) if D believed they had a legal right to take the property
- (3) if D believed the correct property owner couldn’t be found using reasonable measures
— then D is not being dishonest in taking the property, therefore they don’t meet the Mens Rea requirement for theft
If no s2 circs exist, THEN u’d go on to the Ivy test
ONLY IF both elements of that Ivy test are satisfied does D meet the Mens Rea requirement for theft (they’re being dishonest in the taking of the property)
Robbery: Actus Reus?
- Theft Act 1968 s8
Actus Reus = same as that of theft: appropriation of property belonging to someone else — WITH the added element of using force/threatening the use of force. No need to prove causation bc this is basically assault/battery, which like theft are also Conduct Crimes
Robbery, Mens Rea: 2 elements to it
(1) Threat/use of force must be with the intent of stealing —» can’t be reckless use/threat
(2) Same as Theft (appropriation must be dishonest & w the intent of permanently depriving/never giving back the property)
Burglary (Theft Act 1968 ss9-10): Actus Reus? 2 diff kinds of burglary — regular and aggravated burglary. First, regular burglary
- s9(1)(a) if D has committed a trespass [w intention to cause criminal dmg, GBH, or theft~~» but this is MensRea]. Only way to know intent is by looking @ D’s actions b4 the actual trespass (ie, if they brought equipment showing intent to harm, or if they told someone b4hand that they were off to steal smth)
— so the actual Actus Reus for 9(1)(a) is just the trespass—» unlawfully entering a bldg
Burglary s9(1)(b) Actus Reus?
Don’t care abt actions pre-trespass —» for this part, AR = the trespass itself PLUS after the trespass, they’ve done smth to suggest they were gonna commit GBH or theft
Burglary Mens Rea: s9(1)(a) & 9(1)(b)
- For 9(1)(a) — must show there was intent to commit theft/GBH/crim dmg AT THE TIME OF ENTERING the bldg —» tho D may not have done any further steps AFTER entering bldg toward committing this GBH/theft/etc, u just have to show D had the intent prior to AND/OR @ the time of entering
- 9(1)(b) — if D does take any steps toward committing the above ulterior offences (GBH etc), then u charge under this section. This is how U prove they intended to commit [GBH/theft/crim dmg] —» thus, the Mens Rea. The offence itself need not have been completed, just need to show there was an ATTEMPT @ completing it after entering bldg
Note: so ATTEMPTED Burglary should be charged/considered how?
- as an INCHOATE offence
- *inchoate offences (“incomplete offence”) = crime of preparing for/seeking to commit another crime**
You’d charge under s9(1)(b) — show that there was an attempt @ [GBH/theft/crim dmg —» the Offences that up this frm mere theft to burglary] AFTER entering the bldg
- so Burglary can be both an Inchoate and a Complete offence
Makes convictions a bit difficult: if it’s a full offence completed under 9(1)(a), or an ATTEMPT (under 9(1)(b)), u don’t need to prove causation
But if D actually completed the act (and harmed the vic), THEN u have to prove causation for 9(1)(b)
—» have to show that BUT FOR the D’s actions, would the vic have suffered the GBH? Here, recklessness can apply/matter
—» but obvs under 9(1)(b), if D completed act but the act was only theft — Theft = Conduct Crime, so no need to prove causation. Same for crim dmg, so the above only applies for GBH
Theft Act s10 — Aggravated Burglary
If burglary is completed w the use of a weapon/firearm
— I’d charge under s10 if D entered bldg w a weapon, EVEN IF they didn’t actually discharge or use weapon
Criminal Dmg Act 1971 s1(1):
Destroying/Damaging Property
(Paraphrased) “person who unlawfully destroys/damages someone else’s property”, OR INTENDS TO “destroy/dmg another’s property” “or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged” is guilty of this offence
Aggravated Criminal Damage:
Actus Reus = intentional/reckless destruction of property PLUS the endangerment of life
— here u don’t have to prove there WAS actual endangerment of life, only that it COULD have endangered life
Mens Rea = intentional/reckless destruction of property PLUS intentional OR reckless endangerment of life
