Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Offences Against Property - Coggle Diagram
Offences Against Property
Public order offences
• Offensive conduct in a public place Section 5 1994 Act which makes it an offence to engage in offensive conduct between 12 midnight and 7am after being requested by the Gardai to deist. Offensive conduct is unreasonable behaviour (having regard to the circumstances) which is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to other people. Section 23a 1994 Act allows the Gardai impose a fixed charge fine for disorderly conduct in a public place instead of court proceedings.
• Section 6 1994 Act makes it an offence to engage in threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a pubic place: Clifford v DPP (McLoughlin).
• Other offences (all offences allow for arrest without warrant):
o Section 4: being intoxicated in a public place;
o Distributing or displaying threatening, obscene or insulting material in a public place (Section 7);
o Failing to comply with the direction of a Garda (Section 8);
o Entering a building, etc, with intent to commit an offence (Section 11);
o Trespassing on a dwelling, etc. (Section 13);
o Rioting (Section 14);
o Committing acts of violent disorder (Section 15);
o Committing affray (Section 16);
o Blackmailing and demanding money with menaces (Section 17);
o Committing an assault with intent to cause bodily harm or to commit an indictable offence (Section 18);
o Assaulting or obstructing a peace officer (Section 19).
o For the offence of riot, violent disorder or affray, the bystander test is applied. This means that if a bystander was present at the scene of the event or offence while it is being committed, they would fear for their own safety or the safety of someone else.
o In the Act a number of offences are included which only become offences if they are committed in a public place. For example, offences under Sections 4 to 9 of the Act are limited to a public place. The definition of a public place is contained in Section 3 and includes almost all places. It is one of the widest definitions of a public place in the criminal justice system.
Criminal damage
• Section 2 1991 Act involves a perpetrator physically breaking property or rendering it inoperable. Damage is a broad term. Mens rea is intention to damage or reckless as to whether property should be damaged. The difference with theft is that the intention to deprive an owner of their property. Criminal damage is when the property remains with the owner but it has been rendered inoperable.
Theft
• Section 4 2001 Act i.e. usurping of the property rights of the owner. R v Morris: act of switching labels in a supermarket would qualify. Actus reus is dishonest appropriation of property without the consent of the owner and mens rea is the intention to deprive. Property is defined by Section 2 and is defined broadly. Appropriate is under Section 4(5). Appropriation must be dishonest. Section 2 dishonestly means without a claim made in good faith: Section 4(5) is the depriving. LRC recommended definition should include both temporary and permanent deprivation. DPP v Morrissey.
• Consent obtained by intimidation is not consent. People (DPP) v McLoughlin: accused argued he took a much spreader in the belief that the owner would not pay him the money he owed him. Must be proof of dishonesty People (AG) v Grey. It must also be proved that the accused intended to deprive the owner of his property.
False accounting
• Section 10 2001 Act: actor must know that the document is or may be false or misleading and intends to make a gain for himself and a loss for another. R v Atkinson. Deception is defined under Section 2(2) and Section 6 talks about it being an offence to deceive another for gain and to cause them loss. i.e. being dishonest with the intent of making a gain by any deception. DPP v Maguire: review of sentencing for fraud. Appellant was sentenced to 32 concurrent sentences of 4 years imprisonment in circuit criminal court after she pleaded guilty to 32 counts of theft and fraud accounting- over 1 million from employers. Falsifying a document involves making an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive, or omitting a material detail.
Burglary
• Section 12 2001 Act. R v Collins. R v Jones and Smith: (i) entering a building with the intent to commit an arrestable offence and (ii) entering a building without the intent to commit an arrestable offence but committing an arrestable offence. A person enter a building without permission is called trespass. Even if a person has permission and behaves outside the scope of his permission, this is trespass: Barker v R.
• Section 13 2001 Act: aggravated burglary possession of a firearm with mens rea and actus reus of Section 12 2001 Act.
Robbery
• Section 14 2001 Act: robbery is theft that is accompanied using threat or force.; this is called an aggravating factor which must be immediately before or at the end of the theft. It must have occurred to enable the accused to steal. A person is guilty of robbery if he steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, uses force on any person or puts fear in them of force being used. Actus reus is theft accompanied by force or the threat of force. Mens rea is the intent to deprive and for threat or force. DPP v Mangan: allegedly broke the back window of a car and stole a handbag. Seen by an off-duty Garda. Claimed he was at a friend’s house. He appealed that robbery was not established but theft was. However, upheld as force or threat of force here was present as there was 2 nuns in the car when he stole. Max sentence is life imprisonment.
Computers
• Section 8 2001 Act Imprisoned 2 years on indictment and max 12 months summarily.
• Unlawful use of a computer under Section 9 2001 Act offence of dishonestly using a computer to make a gain or a loss.
• Could also be unauthorised access to data Section 5 1991 Act without lawful excuse. Defences at Section 6 i.e. he believed the owner authorised or consented him to do so.
Stolen goods
• Section 17 2001 Act: by receiving it, undertaking or assisting in retention. It must be proved that the accused knew they were stolen or was reckless to the fact i.e. aware of a substantial risk that the property was stolen become guilty of handling stolen goods. Here, the prosecution must prove someone other than the accused stole the goods: People (AG) v Kelly and Robinson. A person cannot be convicted for handling stolen goods unless the jury is convinced that the criminal standard of proof that he did not steal them: DPP v O’Neill. It is therefore important that the jury is charged correctly as to this standard of proof.
• Section 18 2001 Act without lawful excuse possessing stolen property knowing or being reckless to the fact that it was stolen.
• Section 19 2001 Act allows a Garda to request information about the stolen property.
Other offences
• Section 8 2001 Act: making off without payment.
• Section 25 to 28 2001 Act: forgery.