Theft And Robbery Flashcards
Theft
Defined in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968:
‘The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive them of it’
Actus reus - appropriation (s3), property (s4), belonging to another (s5)
Mens rea - dishonesty (s2), intention to permanently deprive (s6)
Appropriation - s3
Defined under s3(1) as any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) and any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as the owner
Appropriation can also be where the owner has consented
Property - s4
Defined under s4(1) - ‘Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’
S4(2)(b) - land cannot be stolen unless the D appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed
S4(3) - stealing mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage growing wild is not theft unless it’s picked for financial gain
S4(4) - wild creatures, unless tamed, in captivity, or in the possession of another cannot be stolen
Belonging to another - s5
Defined under s5(1) - ‘Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control over it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest’
S5(2) - where property is subject to trust, the person to whom it belongs to shall be regards as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and intention to defeat the trust will amount to theft
S5(3) - where the property in question is given to a person with instructions to deal with it in a certain way, the ownership in the property is deemed to remain with the giver
S5(4) - where a person receives property by mistake and is under an obligation to return the property, a failure to restore the property will amount to theft
Dishonesty - s2
No statutory definition but there is a civil test for dishonest under Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd, which was clarified in Barton and Booth with an objective test.
S2(1) A person’s appropriation is not dishonest if they doing it with the belief that:
(A) they have a legal right in law to deprive the other of it
(B) the owner would consent to the appropriation if they knew the circumstances of it
(C) the person to whom the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
S2(2) - a person’s appropriation may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property
Intention to permanently deprive - s6
No definition as it is regarded a question of fact for the jury or magistrate
Examples of necessary intention given under s6(1) include where:
- the person treats the thing as their own regardless of the owner’s rights
- a borrowing/lending of a thing if it’s not returned for a more than reasonable period of time in the circumstances
S6(2) - there is an intention even if the property is returned but some if its value has diminished
- E.g. selling property back to them pretending to be the true owner, returning a ticket after it’s been used…
Robbery - s8
Robbery is aggravated theft under s8 of the 1968 Act
Definition - A person is guilty of robbery if he uses force on any person, or seeks to put any person in fear of being subjected to force, at the time of or before the appropriation.
AR
1) A theft under s1-6 must be committed for robbery to be present
2) The theft must be immediately before or at the time of doing so - once a theft is complete, any force used subsequently cannot amount to robbery, but can be a continuing act
3) The use of or threat of force must be in order to steal
MR
The D must have the MR of theft (s2 and s6) and an intention to use force to steal
R v Morris
S3
Switching labels and trying to pay a lower price was an appropriation and an interference with the owner’s rights
Lawrence v MPC
S3
Theft can be found even where the V consented to the appropriation
DPP v Gomez
S3
An appropriation does not require the absence of consent
Lord Roskill - describes s3(1) as an ‘adverse interference with or usurpation of [the owner’s] rights’
R v Pitham and Hehl
S3
Selling the property was a right of the owner which D interfered with
R v Smith
S4
Property is defined under s4 as including all tangible property which does not preclude illegal property eg class A drugs
R v Kelly and Lindsay
S4
Parts of a corpse can be classed as property
Oxford v Moss
S4
Confidential information is not property than can be stolen under s4
A-G Ref (No1 of 1983)
S5(4)
There was a legal obligation to return the money received by mistake
R v Turner
S5
Something you legally own can belong to another under s5 - the question as to who had the ‘better right’ was irrelevant as the property was still in the owner’s ’possession or control’
Davidge v Burnett
S5(3)
D was liable for theft as the cheques had been given with a clear obligation of where the apply the money, which wasn’t followed
R v Basildon Magistrates’ Court
S5
The bags (and their contents) remained the property of the donor, while those behind the shop were the property of the charity
Ivey v Genting Casino Ltd
S2
Established the civil test for ‘dishonesty’:
1) What was the D’s state of knowledge or belief as to their conduct and the surrounding circumstances?
2) Was the D’s conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary and decent members of society?
Barton and Booth
S2
Clarified the test for dishonesty under Ivey, and affirmed the objective test where dishonesty is assessed based on how ordinary, reasonable people would view the D’s actions
R v Lawrence
S2(1)(b)
Belief or absence of belief that the owner consented to the appropriation is relevant to the issue of dishonesty
R v Small
S2(1)(c)
A belief held can be an honest belief
Lavender v DPP
S6
D intended to treat the doors as his own, regardless of the council’s rights
R v Robison
S2(1)(a) and s8
No theft as D had honest belief that he was entitled to the money, even though he was not entitled to use a knife to recover the debt
R v Mitchell
S6
If a car is stolen for use as a getaway vehicle, this isn’t theft as there’s no intention to permanently deprive
R v Dawson and James
S8 - robbery
Force is an ordinary word decided by the jury
R v Clouden
S8 - robbery
Even though force was only slight, the judge was right to allow the jury to decide.
RP v DPP
S8 - robbery
Like a pickpocket, there was no direct physical contact between the D and the V, so no force
R v Hale
S8 - robbery
Theft was seen as a continuing act even though the force to tie up the V was separate to the stealing
R v Lockley
S8 - robbery
Theft was seen as a continuing act as force used to escape was treated as force used to steal
Theft and robbery plan
Defined in s1 of Theft Act 1968 as ‘the dishonesty appropriation….’
Robbery is defined in s8 of TA 1968.
AR - appropriation (s3), property (s4), belonging to another (s5)
MR - dishonesty (s2), intention to permanently deprive (s6)
Appropriation - s3
Defined under s3(1): assuming the rights of the owner where D has come by the property (innocently or not), and dealing with it as the owner - R v Morris, Lawrence v MPC, DPP v Gomez, R v Pitham and Hehl
Property - s4
Defined under s4(1): ‘Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’ - R v Smith, Oxford v Moss, R v Kelly and Lindsay
S4(2)(b) - land cannot be stolen unless the D appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed
S4(3) - stealing mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage growing wild is not theft unless it’s picked for financial gain
S4(4) - wild creatures (unless tamed, in captivity, or in the possession of another) cannot be stolen
Belonging to another - s5
Defined under s5(1): ‘Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control over it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest’ - R v Turner, R v Basildon Magistrates’ Court
S5(2) - where property is subjected to trust, intention to defeat the trust will amount to theft
S5(3) - where the property is given to a person with instructions to deal with it in a certain way, the ownership remains with the giver - Davidge v Burnett
S5(4) - where a person receives property by mistake and is under an obligation to return the property, a failure to restore the property will amount to theft - A-G Ref (No1 of 1983)
Dishonesty - s2
No statutory definition but there’s a civil test under Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd, which was clarified in Barton and Booth with an objective test. - Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd, Barton and Booth
S2(1) A person’s appropriation is not dishonest if they are doing it with the belief that:
(A) they have a legal right in law to deprive the other of it - R v Robinson
(B) the owner would consent to the appropriation if they knew the circumstances of it - R v Lawrence
(C) the person to whom the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps - R v Small
S2(2) - a person’s appropriation may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property
Intention to permanently deprive - s6
No definition as it is regarded a question of fact for the jury or magistrate - R v Mitchell
Examples of necessary intention given under s6(1) include where:
- the person treats the thing as their own regardless of the owner’s rights - Lavender v DPP
- a borrowing/lending of a thing if it’s not returned for more than a reasonable time in the circumstances
S6(2) - there is an intention even if the property is returned but some of its value has diminished e.g. selling property back to them pretending to be true owner, retuning a ticket after it’s been used…
Apply all…….
Robbery - s8
Aggravated theft
Definition - a person’s appropriation may is guilty of robbery if he uses force on any person, or seeks to put any person in fear of being subjected to force, at the time of or during the appropriation - R v Dawson and James, R v Clouden, RP v DPP
AR components:
- a theft under s1-6 must be committed for robbery to be present
- the theft must be immediately before or at the time of doing so - once a theft is complete, any force used subsequently cannot amount to robbery, but can be a continuing act - R v Hale, R v Lockley
- the use of/threat of force must be in order to steal
MR - The D must have the MR for theft (s2 and s6) and an intention to use force or steal
Apply…
Conclusion - if all elements are satisfied, D can be liable of theft.
