Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Offences Against Property - Coggle Diagram
Offences Against Property
Robbery
- s.8 of the Theft Act 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.
1-
Steals
(Theft)
All the components of Theft must be proven in order for there to be robbery.
R v Robinson
- No theft because the dishonestly element was missing.
R v Zerei
- No theft because it was held that the D did not intend to permanently deprive the V.
(Do not need to go in depth for a robbery question, make sure they are all proven)
2-
Force/Threat of Force
Force is not defined in the Theft act 1968. Case law has taught us that force must be sufficient to be noticeable but a threat of future force will not be sufficient.
R v Dawson and James
- Clarifies that force is an ordinary word and the Jury decides if it is sufficient. In this scenario nudging was held to be force.
R v Bentham
- Held that a threat of force is enough to be convicted of robbery and that it's because it has an intention to create fear.
B and R v DPP
- Held that there is no need for the Victim to feel threatened.
DPP v P
- The force must be used 'on the person', this includes if a Defendant wrenches a bag from V, but not where D snatches a bag of V's lap.
3-
Timing of the Force
Force must be used immediately before, or at the time of the theft.
R v Hale
- Clarifies that force must be immediate but theft can also be ongoing and therefore any violence during the theft can also result in robbery.
R v Lockley
- Upheld the ruling of Hale that robbery can be an ongoing act.
4-
Force used in Order to Steal
Force used for any other purpose will not result in a robbery conviction.
So where D has an argument with V and punches him knocking him out and then sees money has fallen from V's pocket and takes it- this is not robbery. The force was not used to steal.
Theft
- s.1 of the Theft Act 1968
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Actus Reus 1-
Appropriation
s.3(1)
Defined as- assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation... this includes, where he has come by the property without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner.
Assuming the rights of an owner
Pitham v Hehi
- Shows how selling can be seen as an appropriation.
R v Morris
- Switching labels
R v Lawrence
- Consent
R v Hinks
- A person can appropriate even if its given away as a gift. (Done dishonestly)
R v Atakpu and Abrahams
- Appropriation can be continuing but can not go on indefinitely (Jury decides)
Appropriation by keeping and dealing
Actus Reus 2-
Property
s.4(1)
Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Oxford v Moss
- confidential information is not considered property.
R v Marshall
- If it still holds value it can considered theft.
s.4(3)
- Wild fruits if picked for commercial purposes is theft.
s.4(4)
- Taking a wild animal is not theft.
s.13-
Electricity cannot be stolen but instead is a separate offence.
Actus Reus 3-
Belonging to Another
s.5(1)
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest.
Property can either belong to the:
Owner
R v Woodman
Controller
Possessor
Turner (No.2)
s.5(4)
- Where a person is given something by mistake and is under an obligation to return it, keeping it may constitute a theft
AG Ref (No1 of 1983)
s.5(3)
- Where a person receives money 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 shall be regarded as belonging to another.
R v Davidge and Bunnett
s.5(2)
- Where property is held by a trustee on behalf of another who can be liable for theft of trust property.
R v Webster
Mens Rea 1-
Dishonesty
s.2(1)
THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY IN THE ACT!
Current law is defined in
R v Barton and Booth
- objective test
s.2(1)(a):
D is not dishonest if he BELIEVES he has: in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of themselves or of a third person
R v Holden
s.2(1) (b)
: D is not dishonest if he BELIEVES: he or she would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
R v Small
s.2(1) (c):
D is not dishonest if he BELIEVES: the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps (lost property)
R v Boggeln
Mens Rea 2-
Intention to permanently deprive
s.6(1)
Defined as: Intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights; and a borrowing or lending... equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
"Treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights"
DPP v Lavender
- D took the rights of the owner by taking doors from the council.
R v Velumyl-
D treated the property as his own by taking the money.
"Borrowing"- this can amount to an intention to permanently deprive if it is for a period and in the circumstances making it equivalent an outright taking or disposal ( it will diminish in value)
R v Lloyd
Conditional intention is an intention to do something if certain criteria is met ( "I will do this if...")
R v Easom
A conditional intention is not an intention to permanently deprive.
Burglary
- s.9 of the Theft Act 1968
9(1)(a)- A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do any unlawful damage to the building or anything inside.
Mens Rea
- D must have the intention to commit one of the named offences at point of entry, but he does not need to commit any of these offences.
9(1)(b)- A person is guilty of burglary if having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or inflicts or attempts to inflict any GBH.
Mens Rea
- What D intends when he enters is irrelevant, instead the prosecution must prove that D has committed or attempted to commit a theft or GBH once he is inside the building as a trespasser.
Actus Reus 1-
Entry
D must
enter
the building/ part of the building.
R v Brown
- Shows that entry can be when the defendant has an ability to commit the ulterior offence.
R v Ryan
- Shows that the jury must decide if the entry was sufficient.
Actus Reus 2-
Building/Part of a building
s.9(4) The theft act offers some information about what may constitute a building but does not define it.
B and S v Leathley-
Held that a 25 foot freezer used for storage was a building.
Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould
- Held that even though it wasn't being driven, because the lorry had wheels it was a vehicle.
R v Walkington
- Sectioned off area is part of a building.
Includes: dwellings, vehicles, vessels and houseboats.
Actus Reus 3/Mens Rea 1-
As a Trespasser
D must not only be a physical trespasser but the Court of Appeal have confirmed that D must also know he is a trespasser, or, be reckless as to whether he was a trespasser.
R v Smith and Jones
- If D knowing exceeds, or is reckless in exceeding permission they are a trespasser.