Property offences

Burglary

Defined?

S9(1) of the Theft act 1968

Two main parts to S9(1)

S9(1)b - he/she enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser and commits or attempts an ulterior offence

S9(1)a - he/she enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit one of the ulterior offences

Actus reus - The AR of S9(1)a is this, and the AR of S9(1)b is this as well as the AR of the ulterior offence(s) committed.

Main aspects of the actus reus are, enters, building/part of a building, as a trespasser

ENTERS

Not defined by the Theft act, but it must be substantial and effective (R v Collins, R v Brown - mostly effective)

R v Ryan - D has to only be in a position where he/she is able to commit an ulterior offence... the rest is up to the jury

BUILDING

There are two main types of buildings which can be burgled.

Dwelling (regular house) - max 14 years imprisonment

Non-dwelling (company, or organisation building) - max 10 years imprisonment

S9(4) - inhabitated vehicles...apply to such vehicle/vessel at times where the person is having habitation in it...as well as times when he is not

Stevens v Gourley - Judge Byle > "a structure of considerable size... intended to be permanent...or at least for a considerable amount of time"

Contrasting cases - B & S v Leathley (Storange container, NO WHEELS and Norfolk constablulary v Seekings and Gould (2 lorry trailers, HAD WHEELS*

PART OF A BUILDING

When he/she enters a part of a building that they are not permitted to be in (R v Walkington).

TRESPASSER

He/she is counted as a trespasser if he/she enters a building beyond given permission (R v Jones & Smith)

Mens rea

S9(1)a - The MR for this is the intent or recklessness to being a trespasser and intent to commit or attempt an ulterior offence

S9(1)b - The MR for this is the MR of the ulterior offence committed

Fraud

This is a triable-either-way offence.

Defined?

The Fraud act 2005 was established after the Law Commission report 2002 which criticised the previous 8 deception offences.

There are three main sections that need to be breached in order to be guilty of Fraud.

S2 - Fraud by false representation

S3 - Fraud by failing to disclose information

S4 - Fraud by abuse of position

However, in all the D's methods of committing the offence must be dishonest and with intent to

cause loss to another

expose another to a risk of loss

gain for himself or another

Fraud by false representation

b) Intends by making the representation to make a gain, cause a loss, or expose another to a risk of loss.

a) Dishonestly makes a false representation

Actus reus

S2(3) - Representation can be made as to fact (misleading description of a worthless painting) or law (misleading description of a statutory provision)

Opinions do not count as a representation of fact

Representations can be expressed (eg. words said, written, phishing e-mails) or implied (Eg. person implies payment if they eat at a restaurant)

Representations can also be to the state of mind of the representative or another

According to the 2002 Fraud act, a representation can be false if

If it is untrue/misleading

AND the person making it knows this

Mens rea

There are three main parts to the MR of Fraud by false representation

The D must make this representation DISHONESTLY

D must intend to make a gain...himself/another...cause loss...expose another to a risk of loss

D must know that his/her representation is or might be untrue or misleading

Gain/loss refers to...

Money

Other property

Any economic benefit

Obtaining services dishonestly

This does not require deception to be proved, and it can now be committed through a machine/computer

Actus reus

Best way to figure this out is the Ghosh test

The Ghosh test is a two-part objective and subjective test

Objective - Was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable people?

Subjective - Did D realise that reasonable + prudent people would consider this to be dishonest/unreasonable?

HOWEVER, the Ghosh test has now been taken out of the test for dishonesty after the case of Ivey v Ghenting Casinos (2017)

Obtaining services for which payment is/will become due and failing to pay in whole or part

This is a result crime

Mens rea

There are three main parts to the MR of this crime

D has to also be dishonest

D has to intent payment not to be made in full or part

D has to have the knowledge that payment is or will be due

Ghosh test (Ivey v Ghenting casinos)

Criminal damage

There are three parts to criminal damage: Criminal damage, Aggravated criminal damage, and Arson

Criminal damage

Defined?

Criminal damage is defined in S(1) of the Criminal damage act 1971

"A person who without lawful excuse destroys/damages property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage or being reckless** as to whether property is being destroyed or damaged.

Actus reus

Destroys/damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse

Destroys/damages

Damage is required to be sufficient (A v R)

Damage should effect the value or usefulness (Morphitis v Salmon)

It is also considered damage if it has to be paid for to fix the property. (Hardman v Chief constable of Avon and Somerset constabulary)

Aggravated criminal damage

Arson

Property

Defined in S10(1) of the CDA 1971

R v Whitley - Disks are seen as tangible property

The criminal damage doesn't have to be tangible, only the actual property

Belonging to another

Defined?

This is defined in S10(2) of the CDA act 1971

Where one has custody or control; or has a proprietary right or interest of it; or has charge of it

Without lawful excuse

Defined in S5(2) of CDA 1971

Two sections that provide lawful excuse:

S5(2)a - Where D believes that the owner would genuinely consent to the damage

S5(2)b - Allows damage to happen when the D believes other property was in need of immediate need of protection

Has to be immediate (R v Hill & Hall)

Mens rea

Two parts to the MR of Criminal damage: Intent, recklessness

Intend - D must intend to cause damage or destruction to the property (R v Smith)

Recklessness - Cunningham recklessness test (used to be objective, and after R v R & G, its not)

Defined?

Did the D realise that his/her actions were reckless and could have led to some hard/was a risk of hard?

Defined in S1(2) of the CDA 1971

"A person who without lawful excuse intends to or is reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another or them self. Also, intending to or putting the life of another in danger."

Actus reus

The AR is the same to as normal criminal damage except that a life needs to be intended to be endangered or is reckless to endangering.

R v Sangha

Life doesn't actually need to be endangered

Mens rea

Same as normal criminal damage and also requires a life to be intended or reckless to be endangered

R v Warwick

Defined?

Defined in S1(3) of the CDA 1971

"Destroying or damaging property by fire"

Actus reus

Damage/destruction by fire

Singeing material fire = enough for arson

Smoke blackening property is NOT arson

Blackmail

Mens rea

D intends/reckless as to damaging property by fire. MR can be formed after the fire has started.

R v Miller

Defined?

Blackmail is defined in S2(1) of the Theft act 1968

"Making of an unwarranted demand with menaces in order yo achieve a gain for oneself or another; OR *with intent to cause a loss to another

Triable on indictment + max 14 years imprisonment (R v Platt and Malcolm)

Actus reus

There are two main parts to the AR of Blackmail: Unwarranted demand, Menaces

Unwarranted demand

Firstly, the demand must be unwarranted

S2(1) states that a demand is not warranted if the D believes:

He had reasonable grounds to make the demand

The use of menaces is a proper means of enforcing that demand

Whether the D held this belief or not, is upto the jury to decide

For example, if the D threatens a crime and is unaware that what they've threatened is illegal, then it is an unwarranted demand

Secondly, there must be a demand. What is a demand?

A demand can be: Words spoken, words written, conduct

Most demands are explicit, however, some can also be implicit

R v Collister

It is also considered a demand if any reasonable and ordinary person would recognise this to be a demand

If a demand is posted, then the demand is said to have been made when the letter was posted, not received

Tracey v DPP

Menaces

Threats of violence, exposure, damage to property

Lord Wright: "Threats of any actions detrimental or unpleasant to the person addressed"

Throne v Motor Trade Association

Also, should influence the "mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage"

Clear

Menaces is an ordinary English word that any jury should be able to understand

It can still be blackmail if the information being exposed is untrue

Cristie

Mens rea

With a view to gain or loss

Defined in S34 of the Theft act

This can extend to only money or other property"

Example of a gain: Given a job, not to be made redundant or fired, being handed money, jewellery etc