Week 8 Theft Robbery Blackmail Burglary Agg. Burglary Flashcards
R v gosh
Where dishonesty needs to be considered but S2 of theft act does not assist then consider dishonesty as per ruling in gosh…
Jury must ask 2 questions…
1) was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?
If yes then..
2) did the defendant realise what was done was dishonest by THOSE standards
S2 theft act … dishonesty…
A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest if
A) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it on behalf of himself or a third person
Or
B) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
Or
C) if he appropriates prooerty in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps (excluding if property came to him as a trustee or personal representative)
S5 theft act
States that When a person receives property from another and is under an obligation to deal with that property in a particular way, the property shall be regarded as belonging to the other.
An obligation is a legal one not a morale one
S6(2).of the act makes it clear that regardless of any intention to repay money taken,a person parting with property under a condition as to its return that may not be possible, commits theft (i.e collect money by ‘making a wish’ with promise to give all money charity and then the person spends it on failing business with proviso that if business survives they will repay it to charity - in this instance the business may not survive (not gauranteed) so the money may not be able to be repaid - so it is a theft
Robbery…
Any Force used must be used to facilitate the offence of theft.
So if force used for another reason (i.e to rape and then decides to take purse instead after force used, then it is not robbery, it is theft and assault
Can a corpse be stolen?
No. A human body (corpse) cannot be stolen
Only if it has been preserved in some way can it be stolen (ie preserved for medical use or museum)
Is a tamed wild creature regarded as property?
Yes.
Can land be stolen?
What about by a tenant?
Under s4(2) generally NO you cannot steal land. However there are 3 exceptions....:
1) a trustee or other representative or someone in position of trust to dispose of the land can be guilty of stealing it if they dishonesty dispose of it
2) a person not in possession of the land can commit theft by severing fixtures, plants, topsoil etc from the land, or by appropriating it after it has been severed. (I.e take a rose bush from someones garden). This does not include someone who has moved a boundary fence to appropriate a part of a neighbours property as the land has not been severed.
3) a tenant can steal land, but only in respect of the fixtures and structures let to be used with the land (i e fireplace, sink, shed)
* A tenant cannot steal things forming part of the land and therefore not fixtures or structures (i.e the flowers or top soil) when they are in possession of the land .
They can however appropriate fixtures or structures let to be used with the land (ie fireplace / cooker etc)
Can a blank cheque be stolen?
Yes… even though it has very little value in itself, it still has value and is property and therefore can be stolen.
Wild flowers / things growing wild….
Things growing wild on any land are ‘property’ and could be stolen by a person not in posession of that land if they severed and appropriated them… however!
A peraon who “picks’ mushrooms, flowers, fruit and foliage growing wild on any land will not commit theft unless the picking is done for reward, sale or commercial purpose (i e sell the flowers for financial gain).
Except for mushrooms, if the whole plant is removed this is theft as it is not picking. Likewise sawing through a tree trunk us not picking and would be theft
Intention to permanently deprive.
If you cannot prove an intention to permanatly deprive, then you cannot prove theft.
If there is an intention at the time of the appropriation then giving it back at a later time will not alter the fact and the charge will be made out.
S6 may help determine the presence/absence of such an intention … the intention to treat ‘the thing’ as ones own.. to dispose of regardless of the others rights. .. e.g: if a dog is kidnapped and the owner held ransom to pay money to get the dog back, the conclusion to be drawn is that if the money is not paid then the dog is not returned.. so there is an intention to permanently deprive.
Robbery…
Fear of force
And actual force
The fear of force must be felt by the person who is being threatened…
I.e you cannot fear force being used on someone else for the offence of robbery.
However it is robbery is force is actually used against another person or the other person fears force against themselves but the item stolen is from a different person (i.e force used against one worker in a shop, or threatened as long as the person being threatened is aware, when other worker made to hand over the goods).
Robbery….
A theft MUST occur for a robbery to take place
(or be attempted for attempt Robbery)
So for example…
If the defendant has an honest held belief that he in entitled to the item stolen… there is no theft.. therefore there is no robbery
Robbery…
The use or threat of force must be in order to carry out the theft and not for another purpose
I.e 2 men fighting, 1 falls to floor and wallet drops out, other man then decides to take wallet… this is not robbery as the force was not used to commit the theft. (The force was for a purpose other than to steal)
Ask the question… why has the force been used?
if the answer is for anything other than to enable he defendant to commit theft then there is no robbery
Blackmail
S21 theft act
‘A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces’
A demand with menaces is unwarranted unless…
- It is made in the belief that he has reaonable grounds for making the demand and
- That the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial
It is also immaterial if the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand (i.e the menaces can be taken out by another person)
Blackmail… gain or loss
The gain or loss only extend to money or other property
The gain or loss can be temporary or permanent
Gain: includes a gain by keeping what one has as well, as by getting what one has not
Loss: includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has
