LG 8 Theft and Robbery - PDF

Preview

Summary

DISCLAIMER: ALL STRUCTURES, ACTIVITIES AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE NOTES ARE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LAW. ALL NOTES ARE PRODUCED BY MYSELF. BOTH ARE NOT TO BE REPLICATED OR SOLD AS YOUR OWN....

Description

In this Large Group we shall be studying the following two offences:  

Theft Robbery

1.1

Contemporary context of theft and robbery

2.

Theft – s.1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Ivey v Genting

2.1

Actus reus

2.1.1 Appropriation According to section 3, appropriation is any assumption of the rights of an owner. Activity 1 Consider the following four scenarios. In which one or more do you believe there has been an appropriation according to s.3? (a)

Kirsty is given a present for her birthday.

(b)

Laura fills her car with petrol.

(c)

Mo selects a chocolate bar from his local shop.

(d)

Narina grabs a £10 note from her classmate.

DPP v Gomez [1993] AC 442 R v Hinks [2000] 4 All ER 236 Even a gift counts as appropriation 2.1.2 Property To be able to steal something it must come within the wide definition of property contained in s.4 which groups ‘property’ into the following five types: 

Money



Real property



Personal property



Things in action – can’t see/touch but no less value



Other intangible property

Activity 2 Consider, by reference to s.4 which you will find in the statutory extracts below, the following items. Complete the chart indicating whether or not you believe the item is capable of being stolen and if so what type of property it is: • • • • • • • • • •

£5 note money in a bank account a patent for a new drug an acre of land a loaf of bread a wild rabbit a mobile phone confidential information contained in an exam paper electricity wild mushrooms.

Capabl e of being stolen

Not capable of being stolen

Persona l property

Things in action

Other intangibl e property

Mone y

Real property

£5 note

an acre of Petrol money land in a a patent a loaf of bank for a new bread accoun drug t a mobile phone

wild mushroom s

a wild rabbit

Oxford v Moss [1979] Crim LR 119

electricit y

Not s.4 property

confidentia l informatio n contained in an exam paper

Stealing knowledge is not theft 2.1.3 Belonging to another For an offence of theft to be committed, the property must belong to another according to section 5. Property will be regarded as belonging to another where any person has: 

possession;



control; or



a proprietary right or interest in the property in question.

Can you steal your own property? R v Turner (No2) [1971] 2 All ER 441 When does ownership in property pass? Edwards v Ddin (1976) 63 Cr App R 218 By this time, the property had already passed to him so when the petrol was taken without paying it wasn’t someone else’s property. Does it make any difference if you are under an obligation to deal with property in a particular way? R v Wain [1995] 2 Cr App R 660

Although the money was given to him for sponsorship, he had a requirement to use it towards the charity. What about abandoned property? Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates' Court [2010] EWHC 2358 Owner had not abandoned the bag outside the charity shop – intended to go to the shop. Guilty when he took a jumper out of it 2.2

Mens rea Mens rea is made up of two elements - dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive.

2.2.1 Dishonesty According to section 2, there are three situations where the defendant is not regarded as dishonest; and one situation where he would be regarded as being dishonest. These are where the person believes:

s.2(1)(a) - he has the right in law to the property; s.2(1)(b) - the owner would have consented had he known of the circumstances; s.2(1)(c) - the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps; s.2(2) - a person may be dishonest even though he was willing to pay for the property. Common law test for dishonesty Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 The magistrates or jury must: 1. ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the defendant’s knowledge or belief as to the facts; and then 2. determine whether his conduct was honest or dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary, decent people. • If dishonesty is clear, that is the end of the matter. • If not, you should refer to the partial definitions in section 2 of the Theft Act 1968 for guidance. • Only if these do not assist, should you turn to the common law test from the Ivey v Genting Casinos case. Was it clearly dishonest? If yes, don’t need to go any further. If not: · Do partial definitions in s.2 apply? i.e. he believed: o legally entitled to it, or o owner would have consented, or o took reasonable steps to find owner. If not: · Apply two-fold Ivey Test: o Establish what was D's knowledge of the facts? (reasonableness not important) o Was D's behaviour dishonest by reasonable standards? So at this stage all the Prosecution needs to do to secure a conviction is to put before the Court the facts of what the accused did and thought, and then leave it to the jury to decide whether they believe what he did was dishonest or not

2.2.2 Intention to permanently deprive Activity 3 – ‘borrowing’ type cases Consider the following factual scenarios below, which are all based on real cases, and assume that the stated intentions of the accused are true. Refer to s.6(1), which you will find in the statutory extracts below, and identify those where a Court is likely to deem the taking as an intention to permanently deprive another of the property in question: (a) Antonio works as a projectionist at a cinema. He loans a film to a friend who makes a pirate copy of the film. When interviewed, Antonio explains

that the arrangement with his friend was that it would be returned the following day before the next showing of the film. R v Lloyd [1985] QB 829 NOT THEFT (b) Bert buys unexpired underground tickets from members of the public and sells them on for a profit. When interviewed, Bert claims that he knew the tickets would be returned to London Underground by the later passengers when they expired. R v Marshall [1998] 2 Cr App R 282 THEFT (c) Charlie takes a car from its owner at gun point intending to use it as a getaway vehicle to rob a bank. When interviewed, Charlie states that at the time he took the vehicle he intended to abandon it after the bank robbery. R v Mitchell [2008] EWCA Crim 850 NOT THEFT – can’t prove he wasn’t going to abandon it (d) Daleep is an accountant for a company and draws a forged cheque on the company’s account. When interviewed, Daleep explains that he knew the bank would reimburse the company of the money he had fraudulently transferred. Chan Man-Sin v AG for Hong Kong [1988] 1 All ER 243 UPHELD AS EXPECTED MONEY TO BE RETURNED Section 6(2) - there will be an intention to permanently deprive if the person parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform. Can you think of a situation when this may apply? PAWN SHOPS 2.3

Activity 4 Now attempt the following 3 questions to check your understanding of some aspects relating to the mens rea for theft: 1. Amira takes Bernie’s text book which is worth £30. In which one of the following circumstances may she be dishonest under s.2 Theft Act 1968? A. She honestly and reasonably thought it was her book. B. She honestly but unreasonably thought it was her book. C. She left Bernie the sum of £30 in cash to pay for the book. D. She honestly believed Bernie would consent to her taking the book.

2. Is this statement true or false? Having ascertained (subjectively) the defendant’s actual state of knowledge, the test for dishonesty is whether the defendant’s conduct is honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary, decent people. A. True B. False

3. In which one of the following situations is there an intention permanently to deprive for the purpose of theft?

3.

A.

Dean borrows his neighbour's lawnmower but plans to return it an hour later.

B.

Dean takes £5 from his wife's purse to pay for his lunch. He plans to repay her when he is paid next week. Never going to be the same £5 note.

C.

In October, Dean takes Joe's membership card for the local gym. He plans to return the card to Joe in November. Joe's membership is due for renewal next May.

Robbery - s.8 Theft Act 1968 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.

3.1

Key components 

Theft (AR and MR)



Force used or threatened



Immediately before or at the time



In order to steal

3.1.1 Use or threat of force – Activity 5 Robbery is a form of aggravated theft where the use or threat of force is a key ingredient. Consider the two following scenarios and decide whether the type of force referred to in s.8 (above) has been used:

(a) Two people gently jostle the victim to distract him, to enable another member of their gang to take the victim’s wallet from his trouser pocket whilst he is so distracted. Doesn’t need to be substantial – only minimal force needs to be used or threatened so gentle jostling is likely to be sufficient R v Dawson & James (1976) 64 Cr App R 170 (b) A man grabs hold of an elderly lady’s hand bag which she is holding and snatches it from her before running away. At no point does he touch her. It can be on the property itself – force can be directed against the person or property. R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56 3.1.2 Immediately before or at the time of the theft Zara is at a nightclub and has a fight with Victoria who has been flirting with Zara’s boyfriend. During the fight Zara notices that Victoria’s purse has fallen out of her jacket pocket and after the fight has ended, she picks up the purse and keeps it. 3.1.3 In order to steal Paul punches Tony because he dislikes him. He then takes Tony’s iPhone from his jacket pocket which is hanging on the back of a chair.

THEFT ACT 1968 6.

“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it” (1)

A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights: and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

(2)

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/...