Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Topic 8- Property Offences (Handling and Possessing Stolen Property…
Topic 8- Property Offences
Handling and Possessing Stolen Property
Handling
s17(1) 2001 Act:
A person is guilty of handling stolen property if he or she, knowing that property was stolen, or being reckless as to whether it was stolen, dishonestly
a) Receives or arranges to receive it
b) Undertakes or assists in, its retention, removal, disposal or realization by or for the benefit of another person, or arranges to do so
26 ways in which property can be handled
ACTUS REUS: a) Receives or arranges to receive
Doesn't have to actually receive
b) assists in retention/removal/disposal or realisation
MENS REA
Knew Property stolen
Reckless in that regard
Dishonesty
To secure conviction for handling or possessing, it must be proved that he propery handled or possessed, was, in fact, stolen
Handling= max punishment of 10 years and unlimited fine
Possession= max punishment of 5 years and unlimited fine
Charleton: Concept of handling, allows for conviction upon an innocent receipt and a later discovery of true facts
concept of handling or possessing = continuing state of affairs
provided mens rea proved within those acts, accused may be guilty
Possessing
s18(1):A person who without lawful authority or excuse, possession stolen property (otherwise than in course of stealing) knowing that the property was stolen or being reckless as to whether it was stolen, is guilty of an offence
Possession is simpler than handling
Person possesses something if:
ACTUS REUS-
Possesses stolen property
MENS REA-
Knowledge it was stolen
Reckless as to such
NO REQUIREMENT FOR DISHONESTY
Actual Control
Minister for Posts and Telegraphs v Campbell:
A person enjoys actual control of something if 'he personally can exercise physical control over it
Normally person can properly be said to be in possession of teh contents of his own dwelling house, but only if aware of what it contains
Cannot properly be said to be in control or possession of something of whose existence and presence has has no knowledge
Subject to knowledge requirement: a person enjoys actual control of property in his dwelling or car
MENS REA
Note different for handling and possession
reckless- aware of risk of property being stolen, but proceeded with his conduct nonetheless
Otherwise than in the Course of the Stealing
Whether the charge is handling or possessing, it must be proved
the accused's conduct took place 'otherwise in the course of the stealing'
If in the course of the stealing= cannot be guilty of handling or possessing
Someone other than accused stole property
The People (DPP) v O'Neill
: A person cannot be convicted of handling stolen goods unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he did not steal them
Three men found an hour after robbery with proceeds of robbery
Impossible for jury properly charged not to have reasonable doubt as to whether the applicant was one of the three men who stole the goods
The People (DPP) v Fowler
: Fowler went into DIY shop with another man
Acting suspiciously
Next day came back into shop, offering to sell saw
Shop-owner recognised the saw as his on
Issue: Accused tried for larveny and handling
Held: Larceny charge withdrawn from jury by trial judge and accused convicted of handling
Quashed on appeal- Trial judge had not charged jury it could not convict unless satisfed beyond reasonable doubt accused had not stolen saw
Forgery
Mens Rea
Intended false instrument would be used to induce a person to do two things
Accept the instrument as genuine and
by reason of accepting it as genuine, engage in conduct to his or another's prejudice
Does not require proof of actual prejudice, just an intention to use a false instrument to induce someone to cause prejudice as result of acceping false instrument
Prejudiced
financial
remuneration
Do something or omit to do something in course of duty e.g. bouncer letting someone under age in
ACTUS REUS: Making false instrument
Instrument
, s24
'any document, whether of a formal or informal character'
map, plan, graph, drawing, photo or record (Not exhaustive)
Minister for Justice and Equality v Doyle
: Not exhaustive= includes driving license, immaterial doesnt appear on list
False
, s30(1)
Instrument is false for purposes of this part if it purports
a) to have been made in the form in which it is made by a person who did not in fact make it in that form
b) to have been made in the form in which it is made on the authoirty of a person who did not in fact authrise its making in that form
c) To have been made in the terms in which it is made by a person who did not in fact make it in those terms
etc etc
S30(2) Fact instrument was already false by the time accused altered it is not a defence to charge of forgery
s25(1)
: A person is guilty of forgery if he or she makes a false instrument with the intention that it shall be used to induce another person
To accept it as genuine
By reason of so accepting it, to do some act, or to make some omission, the the prejudice of that person or any other person
Max 10 years and unlimited fine
S26
: Using an instrument which a person knows or believes to be false= offence
Criminal Damage Act 1991
s2(1): Damaging Property
s2(1): A person who without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another, intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged, shall be guilty of an offence
ACTUS REUS
Damaging property
belonging to another
cant be convicted of criminal damage of own property
s1(2): Own- custody/control/ proprietary right or interest/ having charge over it
MENS REA
Intention to damage or reckless in that regard
S1(1)- Definition of damage
s1(1)- Property definiton
Without Lawful excuse
s6(2): treated as having lawful excuse
a) at time of criminal damage accused believed the person entitled to consent to criminal damage, had consented or would have had consent had he known about the damage
c) Damaged property to protect himself or another
The People (DPP) v Kelly
: s6(2) requires acts which are subject of the defence be reasoable
Reasonable as the D believed them to be
Highly subjective defence
s2(2): Damaging Property- Endangering Life
A person who, without lawful, damages any property, whether belonging to himself or anohter
a) intending to damage property or being reckless as to whether any property would be damaged and
b) intended by the damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered
Actus Reus
Proof accused damage property
Any property, can be own property
Mens Rea
Intended or reckless
and the accused intended to endanger life and reckeless in that regard
(no need to prove another person's life was in fact endangered)
s2(3): Damaging Property With intent to defraud
s2(3): A person who damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another, with intent to defraud shall be guilty of an offence'
AR: damages any property
MR: Intent to defraud
Can be guilty of this offence even if he damaged his own property and it does not have to be proved that another person was in fact defrauded
Proof accused aware of a risk of defrauding does not suffice to secure a conviction
purpose must be to defraud
s2(6)
Defines recklessness
in subjective terms
' A person is reckless if he has foreseen that the particular kind of damage that in fact was done might be done and yet has gone on to take that risk'
Operating a Computer
s5(1) 1991 Act: A person who without lawful excuse operates a computer
a) Within the State with intent to access any data kept within or outside the state
b) outside the state with intent to access data kept within the state, shall, whether or not he accesses any data, be guilty of an offence
Do not need proof accused accessed data