Theft, Handling, and Robbery

Question 1

Definition - theft

Answer 1

> Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968:
-“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.”

Question 2

Theft - AR

Answer 2

> Appropriating property belonging to another.

Question 3

Theft - MR

Answer 3

> Dishonesty

>Intention to permanently deprive

Question 4

Property - definition

Answer 4

> S. 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968:
-‘Property’ includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

> Real property = land.
Personal property is not land.
Thing in action = property right that can be claimed in a court action
Intangible = patents, copyrights, etc,

Question 5

Property - land - what is theft of land?

Answer 5

1. S. 4(2)(a). Where D is a trustee and is authorised to sell some land he can be convicted of theft if he sells more land than he is authorised to do so.
2. S. 4(2)(b). Things which are ‘part’ of/ are on the land, e.g. growing on land, permanent structure or integral part of such fixture. Not an offence for a tenant unless he removed a ‘fixture or structure’ (S. 4(2)(c)).
3. S. 4(3). Special rules for fruits & plants from the land:
   - “A person who picks mushrooms growing on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit of foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purposes.”

Question 6

Property - wild creatures

Answer 6

> S. 4(4).
Tamed creatures are treated as property and can be stolen.
Wild animals kept in captivity or reduced into possession can be stolen but those not in captivity cannot be stolen.

Question 7

Property - information

Answer 7

> Oxford v Moss (1979).
Student copied exam paper and then returned it.
CA quashed conviction for theft as confidential information can’t be stolen.
Injunctions can be obtained in civil law to protect revelation of confidential information.
Computer Misuse Act 1990 creates special offences which deal with people accessing confidential information held on computers.

Question 8

Property - utilities

Answer 8

> Electricity isn’t property, specific offence under s. 13.
Gas & water in artificial container are property.
Water in stream/pond = part of land dealt with under rules governing land.

Question 9

Property - bodies

Answer 9

> Traditionally bodies, body parts, bodily products & corpses not property but this is coming under challenge.
Bodily matter currently amounts to property for purposes of law of theft:
1. Unburied corpse.
2. Bodily products, e.g. blood, urine, semen, if taken into someone’s control.
3. If someone has exercised special skills in relation to a corpse or body part then that may be transformed into property.

Question 10

Belonging to another - overview

Answer 10

> Sometimes deemed to belong to no one e.g. abandoned.

>Usually obvious but borderline cases are dealt with under s. 5(1).

Question 11

Belonging to another - abandoned property

Answer 11

> Hibbert v McKiernan [1948]: Mis-hit golf balls once left belong to owner of golf course.
Williams v Phillips (1957): Property in rubbish bin not abandoned in that owner intended it to be removed by council refuse collectors & not any passer-by.

Question 12

Belonging to another - section 5(1) - quote

Answer 12

“Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).”

Question 13

Belonging to another - s. 5(1) - explained

Answer 13

> R (Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates’ Court [2010]:
-Convicted for theft of property left outside of charity shop.
-Clothes left in storage bin at back of shop so held to be within possession/control of shop.
-However, bags on pavement could only be charged with theft from the unknown person who left the bags, rather than the shop.
The possession or control doesn’t have to be lawful.
Can be convicted of theft of own property, e.g. driving car from garage who had lawful control of it as in Turner (No. 2).

Question 14

Belonging to another - s. 5(2)

Answer 14

> “Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and an intention to defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person having that right.”

> Property shall be regarded as belonging to those entitled to enforce the trust.

Question 15

Belonging to another - s. 5(3) - general

Answer 15

> “Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to another.”

> Where D is given property and under an obligation to deal with that property in a particular way, he is the owner in civil law but unless he is under a legal obligation (not moral obligation) to V to deal with that property in a particular war, the property is treated as belonging to V.

Question 16

Belonging to another - s. 5(3) - case

Answer 16

> R v Hall [1973]:
-D received money by clients as deposit for flights, which he paid into the firm’s general account.
-Flights didn’t materialise and money wasn’t refunded.
-Convicted of theft but appealed that the money didn’t belong to another and s. 5(3) didn’t apply.
Edmund Davies LJ:
-D was under a contractual obligation to buy tickets for the clients.
-But there was no evidence that D’s clients expected him to retain and deal with their money or its proceeds in a particular way that would give rise to an obligation within s5(3) (although it could be possible in another case).
-Thus, the money could not be considered to be belonging to D’s clients.
Key = courts didn’t expect D to deal with the actual monies handed over, i.e. buy air tickets but not with that particular monies.

> Difference with those who collect money for charities but keep for themselves, e.g. in Wain, courts held D was under obligation to retain, if not the actual notes and coins collected, at least their proceeds.

Question 17

Belonging to another - s. 5(4) - overview

Answer 17

> Where D has received property due to another’s mistake and is under an obligation to restore the proceeds or their value, the property belongs to the person entitled to restoration of it.

Question 18

Belonging to another - s. 5(4) - mistakes

Answer 18

> Where A hands to D property on the basis of a mistake, 4 situations need to be distinguished:

1. Mistake = so fundamental it is still owned by A. No difficulty in establishing ‘property belonging to another’ & D is convicted of theft.
2. Mistake is not so fundamental so ownership passes and D owns but mistake sufficient to mean D is under obligation to return and can be convicted if A relies on s. 5(4).
3. If mistake means D hold property on trust for A, then A has an equitable interest in the property and property belongs to A under s. 5(1), D can be convicted of theft.
4. Mistake not significant enough. Property will belong to D and no charge of theft, unless the transfer from A itself is dishonest.

Question 19

Appropriation - definition

Answer 19

> S. 3(1):
-“Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.”

Question 20

Appropriation - House of Lords

Answer 20

> Dealt with 4 times since 1968 Act.
2 key conclusions:
1. There’s appropriation if D has assumed any rights of owner. E.g. touch, offer it for sale, destroy it. An act only owner has right to do. This means that theft takes point at earlier point than most assume, e.g. when you first touch item - not when running out of shop with it.
2. Appropriation can occur whether the victim consented, requested, or objected to the act.
-Gomez = V’s state of mind irrelevant to appropriation.
-Hinks = HoL held even if property handed to D as as part of gift could could amount to appropriation.

Question 21

Appropriation - 2 key cases

Answer 21

1. R v Gomez

2. R v Hinks

Question 22

Appropriation - R v Gomez

Answer 22

> R v Gomez [1993]:
-D was an assistant manager of a shop and persuaded his manager to accept two stolen cheques as payment for a good from the customer (an acquaintance of his).
-Appealed as transfer of goods had been consented to by the manager and so there was no appropriation.
Lord Keith:
-“Viscount Dilhourne’s speech contains 2 clear pronouncements… no longer an ingredient of theft that the taking should be without the owner’s consent and second, that an appropriation may occur even though the owner has permitted or consented to the property being taken.”
-“Lord Roskill was undoubtedly right when he said… that the assumption by D of any of the rights of an owner could amount to an appropriation”.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson:
-“The fact that Parliament used that composite phrase -‘dishonest appropriation’ - in my judgment cases light on what is meant by the word ‘appropriation’… I regard the word ‘appropriation’ in isolation as being an objective description of the act done irrespective of the mental state of either the owner or the accused.”

Question 23

Appropriation - R v Hinks

Answer 23

> R v Hinks [2001]:
-D accompanied V, a trusting man of limited intelligence, nearly everyday for 6 months to his building society where he withdrew £300.
-Total received was over £60,000 and Hinks convicted of theft.
-Expert psychiatrist gave evidence that it was unlikely V made decision to hand over the money on his own.
-Appealed on question as to “whether the acquisition of an indefeasible title to property is capable of amounting to an appropriation of property belonging to another for the purposes of section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.”
-E.g. can a person ‘appropriate’ property when another has made it an indefeasible gift retaining no proprietary interest or right to resume/recover a proprietary interest in the property.
-HoL dismissed appeal as the meaning of ‘appropriation’ is not so limited.
Lord Steyn (majority):
-By adopting a narrower definition of appropriation, the outcome is likely to place beyond the reach of the criminal law dishonest persons who should be found guilty of theft, restrict the scope of the law of theft and complicate the fair and effective prosecution of theft.
Lord Hobhouse (dissenting):
-An essential function of the criminal law is to define the boundary between what conduct is criminal and what merely immoral.
-To treat lawful conduct as criminal merely because it is morally reprehensible would be contrary to principle and open to objection, it would fail to achieve transparent certainty required of criminal law by basic human rights principles.

Question 24

Appropriation - uncertain areas - list

Answer 24

1. Obtaining money from another’s bank account.
2. Can an omission amount to an appropriation?
3. Can there be multiple appropriations?
4. Can there be appropriation by a bona fide purchaser?

Question 25

Appropriation - uncertain areas - obtaining money from another’s bank account

Answer 25

> R v Darroux [2018]:
-D submitted various forms falsely claiming overtime payment to a company which controlled the charity’s bank accounts.
-Money claimed by D was paid to her by transfer from the charity’s account to hers.
-Basis of appeal = had she appropriated the money?
Davies LJ:
-“In submitting the monthly time forms and holiday forms the appellant was not, in our judgment, assuming any rights of an owner with regard to the bank account.”
-“The monthly forms themselves conferred no rights on the appellant with regard to the bank account.”
-“What she did, we consider, was too far removed to be an act of appropriation with regard to the bank account.”
-“Control of the account rested solely with the Housing Association”
Key point = the property in this case was V’s bank account and a bank account is a ‘chose in action’ the V has against their bank. You have a right to claim money from the bank. She hadn’t done anything to the legal claim of the bank, only merely persuaded.

Question 26

Appropriation - uncertain areas - can an omission amount to an appropriation?

Answer 26

> CA yet to address in detail but it is submitted that an omission can be an appropriation because s. 3(1) describes appropriation as including “keeping… as owner.”
Must be shown to have kept property for significant time length.
Broom v Crowther:
-D had purchased stolen theodolite, but once found out there was doubt over origins he hadn’t touched it, just left in room.
-Court held no appropriation as he had only kept for a few days.

Question 27

Appropriation - uncertain areas - can there be multiple appropriations?

Answer 27

> Can appropriate a number of time before s/he steals it.
It is theft at time MR coincides with AR.
Mainly for jurisdictional issues, e.g. which country did theft take place in?
Atakpu, stole car in Germany and arrested in Dover, CA held Ds hadn’t committed theft in England.

Question 28

Appropriation - uncertain areas - can there be appropriation by a bona fide purchaser?

Answer 28

> S. 3(2) covers this (only for purchasing not applicable for case of gifts.)
Person who buys a piece of property in good faith will not become thief on discovering it is stolen.
Guilty if know when buying, not acting in good faith.
Can be guilty of handling stolen goods.

Question 29

Intention permanently to deprive - the core meaning of ‘intentional deprivation’

Answer 29

> Borrowing doesn’t normally amount to theft.
Buzz words = intention, deprivation, replacement of taken goods, D need not intend to deprive by the act of appropriation, conditional intention.

Question 30

Intention permanently to deprive - the core meaning of ‘intentional deprivation’ - intention

Answer 30

> D must intend to permanently deprive V of item.
Absent-mindedness doesn’t count.
Extended by s. 6.

Question 31

Intention permanently to deprive - the core meaning of ‘intentional deprivation’ - deprivation

Answer 31

> S. 1(2):
“It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.”
Just need to deprive V of property.

Question 32

Intention permanently to deprive - the core meaning of ‘intentional deprivation’ - replacement of taken goods

Answer 32

> Depends on whether acting dishonestly.
If D took property with intention of replacing it, dishonesty is paramount.
D intended to deprive V of property even though intended to replace.

Question 33

Intention permanently to deprive - the core meaning of ‘intentional deprivation’ - D need not intend to deprive by the act of appropriation

Answer 33

> It is enough to appropriate property, while having an intention to permanently deprive the owner of some point in the future (needn’t deprive them there and then).

Question 34

Intention permanently to deprive - the core meaning of ‘intentional deprivation’ - conditional intention

Answer 34

> In Easom 1971, D picked up handbag in cinema, looked through i and decided nothing worth staling so acquitted of theft on basis that he couldn’t be said to deprive V of any of these items.
What he intended to do was deprive V of whatever he found if it was of value.
Could have been convicted if charged with theft of contents of bag rather than the specifics of ‘one handbag, one purse, one notebook, a quantity of tissues, a quantity of cosmetics and one pen.’
To avoid difficulties it’s best to charge with attempted theft.

Question 35

Section 6 and the extension to the key meaning of ‘permanent deprivation’ - general

Answer 35

> S. 6 is unclear, but thought to apply in following circumstances:

1. Throwing taken items away.
2. Selling the item back to victim.
3. Ransoming property.
4. Moving the defendant’s property.
5. Returning property to an impoverished state.
6. Pawning the goods.
7. Risking the property.
8. Offences involving temporary deprivation.

Question 36

Section 6 and the extension to the key meaning of ‘permanent deprivation’ - throwing taken items away

Answer 36

> Could argue didn’t intend to deprive V of property as wouldn’t have minded if V later recovered it.
Convicted under s. 6(1) as has “treated the property as his own” and “disposed of it”.
Convicted if at moment of taking, they intended permanent deprivation even if change mind later.
In Mitchell [2008], held that disposal required concealment so wouldn’t apply where item left in clear view.

Question 37

Section 6 and the extension to the key meaning of ‘permanent deprivation’ - sell item back to victim

Answer 37

> Argument that intended V to buy item and so get it back isn’t available under s. 6(1) as D is treating it as his own and intending to ‘dispose’ of it.

Question 38

Section 6 and the extension to the key meaning of ‘permanent deprivation’ - ransoming property

Answer 38

> D intended V to pay ransom and recover property and so not permanently deprive them of it.
S. 6(1): D has treated property as his ‘own to dispose of.’

Question 39

Section 6 and the extension to the key meaning of ‘permanent deprivation’ - moving the defendant’s property

Answer 39

> DPP v Lavender [1994]:
-Tuckey J willing to accept could amount to theft where D moved a door from one council flat to another.
Can’t be reconciled with Mitchell which held driving V’s car a few miles away and leaving with hazard lights on wasn’t theft.

Question 40

Section 6 and the extension to the key meaning of ‘permanent deprivation’ - returning the property in an impoverished state

Answer 40

> S. 6(1) states that if the borrowing is “equivalent to an outright taking or disposal” then this amounts to an intention to permanently deprive and so D can be convicted of theft.
Subsection quite narrow though as borrowing must be equivalent to an outright taking so returning it in a usable/not completely destroyed state may not suffice.
DPP v SJ, PI, RC [2002]:
-Ds took headphones, snapped them and then returned.
-Held that didn’t need to be shown goodness of property had been ‘completely exhausted’ for s. 6 to apply; it was enough if property had lost its practical usefulness.
-Ds convicted of theft.
Unanswered Q = is goodness/value of item to be judged by V’s standards or objectively?

Question 41

Section 6 and the extension to the key meaning of ‘permanent deprivation’ - pawning the goods

Answer 41

> D pawns/pledges goods, intending to pay back the debt and hence recover item, this falls with s. 6(2) and D is treated as intending to deprive.

Question 42

Section 6 and the extension to the key meaning of ‘permanent deprivation’ - risking the property

Answer 42

> If D gambles V’s property or invests it in a risky investment D will be treated as intending to deprive V of it.
R v Marshall [1998]:
-Ds convicted of theft of London Underground tickets which they asked for from members of public as they left and resold cheaply.
-Appealed on basis that they didn’t intend to permanently deprive London Underground of the tickets.
-CA dismissed the appeals.
-Court held that the appellants showed the required intention to treat the tickets as their own, when they started reselling them and disregarded the London Underground’s rights.
-Further, since the appellants had already pleaded to acting dishonestly, their convictions were safe.
Lord Justice Mantell:
-“It is the exclusive right of London Underground to sell tickets. By acquiring and re-selling the ticket the Appellant has an intention to treat the ticket as his own to dispose of regardless of London Underground’s right”.

Question 43

Section 6 and the extension to the key meaning of ‘permanent deprivation’ - offences involving temporary deprivation

Answer 43

> Parliament has created special offences to deal with temporary deprivation which are seen as sufficiently serious to justify a criminal conviction, even if they don’t constitute theft.
E.g. removing property from places open to public or to take a conveyance with authority.

Question 44

Dishonesty - general

Answer 44

> S. 2 sets out circumstances in which D won’t be dishonest, if D not covered by this section then it’s necessary to consider common law definition of theft.

Question 45

Dishonesty - section 2 - list

Answer 45

> 3 circumstances in which a person is not dishonest:

1. S.2(1)(a). D’s believes he has the right to deprive the owner of the property.
2. S. 2(1)(b). D had belief owner would consent.
3. S. 2(1)(c). Belief that owner couldn’t be found.

Question 46

Dishonesty - section 2 - D’s belief that he has the right to deprive the owner of the property

Answer 46

> No dishonesty if believes legally entitled to deal with property.
Belief doesn’t have to be reasonable or based on accurate understanding of the law.
Usually where D believes property is their own.
Wider than this though.
Has to be belief that they have right in law to deal with property not a moral belief (although this may lead to finding that no dishonesty on basis of common law definition of dishonesty).

Question 47

Dishonesty - section 2 - belief that owner would consent

Answer 47

> Normally applied where D and V are friends or relatives.

>Must be genuine belief, but needn’t be a reasonable one.

Question 48

Dishonesty - section 2 - belief owner couldn’t be found

Answer 48

> D finds property which they believed to be abandoned.
Key question is whether the owner can be found by taking reasonable steps?
D genuinely believes (again no need to be reasonable) that owner can’t be found by reasonable steps suffices.

Question 49

Dishonesty - section 2(2)

Answer 49

> Merely intending to pay for an item doesn’t negate theft.
Although D may be able to convince jury not dishonest under s. 2(1)(a) that V would have no objection is left money behind after taking a product in an empty shop for example.

Question 50

Dishonesty - common law test for dishonesty

Answer 50

> If D not acquitted under s. 2(1), then jury will go on to consider the common law test for dishonesty, set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos, which departed from the old test set out in Ghosh.

Question 51

Dishonesty - common law test for dishonesty - Ivey v Genting Casinos

Answer 51

> Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]:
-D, one of world’s top poker players, won £7.7 million over 2 days playing ‘Punto Banco’ by using minute differences in the backing of playing cards to tell their value and thereby increase his chances of winning.
-Civil case but SC also discussed definition of dishonesty in criminal law previously set out in Ghosh.
Lord Hughes:
-Since R v Ghosh [1982], a two-stage test for dishonesty has applied.
-“Firstly, it must ask whether in its judgment the conduct complained of was dishonest by the lay objective standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people.”
-If no then D not dishonest, if yes then must ask “secondly, whether D must have realised that ordinary honest people would so regard his behaviour, and he is to be convicted only if the answer to that second question is yes.”
-Goes on to list problems with this test and says it no longer applies.
-Instead “when dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts it established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that D must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.”
-“Truthfulness is indeed one characteristic of honesty, and untruthfulness is often a powerful indicator of dishonesty, but a dishonest person may sometimes be truthful about his dishonest opinions.”
Civil law case so comments on criminal dishonesty are obiter but generally assumed that Ivey will be used in criminal courts from now on, which was stated explicitly in DPP v Patterson [2017]: “it is difficult to imagine the CA preferring Ghosh to Ivey in the future.”

Question 52

Dishonesty - common law test for dishonesty - Ivey v Genting Casinos - how it changed law & commentary

Answer 52

> Now test for dishonesty was simpler: jury must decide whether D’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people, bearing in mind the facts as D believed them to be.
So a mistake about facts can be used to support a D’s argument that they weren’t dishonest, but not a mistake about what ordinary decent people thought was dishonest.
But is not what a person thinks is ‘standard practice’ or ‘normally acceptable’ a ‘fact’ which can be considered in deciding whether D is dishonest?
Dyson & Jarvis: It is unclear if D is still permitted to say that in considering whether they were dishonest the jury should take into account the fact that D believed they were acting in line with how most people would behave.

Question 53

Robbery - statutory definition

Answer 53

> S. 8 of TA 1968:

1. A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do 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.
2. A person guilty of robbery, or of an assault with intent to rob, shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for life.

Question 54

Robbery - broken into 2 elements

Answer 54

1. AR and MR of theft must be proved.

2. D must be shown to have used or threated force at time of theft.

Question 55

Robbery - broken into 2 elements - D must be shown to have used or threated force at time of theft.

Answer 55

> 3 elements to this requirement:

1. Use/threat of force. Force given its ordinary meaning. Force can be minimal, e.g. a nudge = sufficient in Dawson 1976. Force can be used against the person or against the property if the touching of the property affects V’s body. V doesn’t need to be afraid and it could be threat of violence to 3rd party, e.g. V’s child.
2. Force used in order to steal & no other purpose. Intends to use force in order to steal. Accidental force = insufficient.
3. Force used at time of theft of immediately before it. E.g. not during ‘getaway’. R v Hale.

Question 56

Robbery - broken into 2 elements - D must be shown to have used or threated force at time of theft - R v Hale

Answer 56

> R v Hale (1979)
D covered V’s mouth to prevent her screaming whilst friend went upstairs & took jewellery box then D tied V up before leaving house.
Ds appealed against their conviction for robbery on basis that under s8(1) Theft Act 1968, the use of force had to be immediately before or during appropriation, which completed once box was seized.
Lord Justice Eveleigh:
-“The act of appropriation does not suddenly cease. It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the act of appropriation has finished. Moreover, it is quite clear that the intention to deprive the owner permanently, which accompanies the assumption of the owner’s rights was a continuing one at all material times. This Court therefore rejects the contention that the theft had ceased by the time the lady was tired up. As a matter of common-sense the appellant was in the course of committing theft; he was stealing.”
-“Quite clearly the jury were at liberty to find the appellant guilty of robbery relying upon the force used when he put his hand over Mrs Carrett’s mouth to restrain her from calling for help. We also think that they were also entitled to rely upon the act of tying her up provided they were satisfied that the force so used was to enable them to steal.”
-Appeal dismissed.

Question 57

Assault with intent to rob

Answer 57

> Created by s. 8(2) of TA 1968.

>Must be shown that D committed an assault or battery with intent to rob.

Question 58

Handling stolen goods - definition

Answer 58

> S. 22:
1. A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

> Max sentence = 14yrs which is odd given theft = 7yrs.
One explanation offered by courts is that if there were no handlers willing to receive & distribute the goods there would be fewer thefts.

Question 59

Handling stolen goods - goods definition

Answer 59

> S. 34(2)(b):
‘goods’, except insofar as the context otherwise requires, includes money and every other description of property except land, and includes things severed from the land by stealing.

Question 60

Handling stolen goods - expansion

Answer 60

> S. 24(2) expands the scope of the offence:
S. 24(2)(a) and (b) mention other goods. E.g. any proceeds of any disposal or realisation of the whole or part of the stolen goods so representing them.
S. 24(4) - goods obtained either by blackmail or in the circumstances described in s. 15(1) are regarded as stolen.

Question 61

Handling stolen goods - broken down - list

Answer 61

1. It must be shown that the goods have already been stolen.
2. It must be shown that D handled the property.
3. It must be shown that D knew or believed that the goods were stolen.
4. D was dishonest.

Question 62

Handling stolen goods - broken down - it must be shown that the goods had already been stolen

Answer 62

> No need to prove who stole them.
Forsyth [1997]: goods would be stolen even if the ‘thief’ were able to rely on an excuse (e.g. duress) and so not be guilty of offence of theft.
Offence covers not only stolen goods, but also the proceeds of stolen goods.
S. 24(3) provides that goods will cease to be stolen in various situations, e.g. once returned to original owner or recovered by police.

Question 63

Handling stolen goods - broken down - it must be shown that D handled the property - definition

Answer 63

> D must have engaged in or arranged one of the following:

1. receiving the property.
2. undertaking either retention, removal, disposal, or realization of goods either by another or for another’s benefit.
3. Assisting in either retention, removal, disposal or realization of goods either by another or for another’s benefit.

Question 64

Handling stolen goods - broken down - it must be shown that D handled the property - discussion points

Answer 64

1. Receiving involves taking goods into control/possession.
   - D must be aware of this. If isn’t until later on then best to charge with retention.
   - Merely touching may be insufficient to amount o receiving as seen in Hobson v Impett (1957) where D helped thief unload stolen goods from lorry = not receiving.
2. Assisting = help/encouragement, requires more than simply using property that someone else is retaining (Sanders 1982).
   - Kanwar (1982) = lying to police sufficient.
   - Brown [1970] = failure to inform police about stolen goods’ whereabouts doesn’t amount to assisting in retention of goods.
3. Handling must be ‘otherwise than in the course of stealing’.
   - Thief can still be handler but must show act of handling occurred after theft taken place.
   - Appropriation once theft has occurred can amount to handling.
4. Receive property ‘by or for the benefit of another’.
   - If D is not alleged to have received the property, but one of the other forms of handling is relied upon, it needs to be shown that D acted for the benefit of another.
   - R v Bloxham [1983] = leading case, in which HoL decided sale of car to someone couldn’t be regarded as for another’s benefit.

Question 65

Handling stolen goods - broken down - it must be shown that D handled the property - R v Bloxham

Answer 65

> R v Bloxham [1983]:
- D agreed to buy car for £1300 not knowing at time it was stolen.
-He paid £500 on account & agreed to pay rest once registration docs were produced, which they never were and so he suspected it was stolen and sold it on for £200.
-Charged with handling stolen goods.
-Trial judge rejected this holding that purchaser gained a benefit in that he had acquired use of car if not good legal title to it and so D appealed to CA.
-Conviction quashed - for benefit of another is missing.
Lord Bridge of Harwich:
-“The critical words to be construed are ‘undertakes… their… disposal or realisation… for the benefit of another person.”
-When “considering these words in isolation… if A sells his own goods to B… It is the purchase, not the sale, that if for the benefit of B… It is only when A is selling as agent for a 3rd party C that it would be entirely natural to describe the sale as a disposal or realisation for the benefit of another person.”
-“But the words cannot, of course, be construed in isolation.”
-“Accordingly, a purchaser, as such, of stolen goods cannot, in my opinion, be ‘another person’ within the subsection, since his act of purchase could not sensibly be described as a disposal or realisation of the stolen goods by him. Equally, therefore, even if the sale to him could be described as a disposal or realisation for his benefit, the transaction is not, in my view, within the ambit of the subsection.”

Question 66

Handling stolen goods - broken down - it must be shown that D knew or believed that the goods were stolen

Answer 66

> Subjective test.
Doesn’t matter if a reasonable person would have known, what matters is that D knew.
D must know or believe.
Rare D will know, courts held mere suspicion is not enough to satisfy ‘know’. (Forsyth 1997).
Most difficult cases = willful blindness where D doesn’t ask Qs and assumes legitimate even though aware ‘at back of mind’ there are Q marks over origins of the good.
Courts (Griffiths 1974) held that such willful blindness doesn’t amount to knowledge.

Question 67

Handling stolen goods - broken down - D was dishonest

Answer 67

> Ivey test for dishonesty.
Rare that someone who knows or believes the goods to be stolen will claim successfully they were acting honestly.
Maybe can claim they were intending to return goods to original owner or police.

Question 68

Money Laundering Offences

Answer 68

> Most important money laundering offences are included in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by Part III of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.