Theft AND Robbery PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary of establishing theft and robbery to answer problem question in exam. ...

Description

THEFT AND ROBBERY THEFT Try and get theft and assault rather than robbery, two minor offences is better than one major indictable offence. Theft  s 134, a person appropriates or deals with property without the consent of the owner, the accused must act dishonestly and they had to have been aware of this dishonesty to the standards of a reasonable person and have the intention to deprive or seriously encroach the owner’s rights to the property. Force or threat of force  used or threatened immediately, before or at the time of the theft. The conduct/violence MUST have been committed in order to carry out the theft, or to escape. 1) Physical element- ‘deals with property owned by another without consent’ s130, s132(1), (2) and (3) ‘Deals with’ s130: a- takes, obtains receives b- retains c- coverts or disposes d- deals with the property in another way ‘Without consent’ s132(1): (1) a- implied consent of the owner b- actual or implied consent of the owner who has actual or implied authority to consent on behalf of the owner (2) A person is taken to have the implied consent of another if the person honestly believes, from the words or conduct of the other, that he or she has the other's consent. (3) however a person who knows that another’s consent was obtained by dishonest deception is taken to act without consent. 2) Fault element – intention, s134(2) 3) Dishonesty test- s131(1) 1) A person's conduct is "dishonest" if the person acts dishonestly according to the standards of ordinary people 2) and knows that he or she is so acting (R v Ghosh) 4) Defence- Did D believe they had an equitable or legal right to the property? S131(5) (6). Therefore, no intention and no crime can be made out.

Example answer: the prosecution must first prove that the accused committed theft by appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of the property or seriously encroaching on their rights to the property and in doing so, has acted dishonestly. On the facts, X intended to deal with the property which is evident because ______. X’s behaviour is quite obviously dishonest, and equates to behaviour that a reasonable, ordinary person would deem so (R v Feely). There is nothing that indicates that X is unaware that their actions were not dishonest. X believed that they had an equitable right to the property, however, should have gone through proper channels to receive compensation and thus, X will be charged with theft.

**If there is force, go to s137 robbery. *If someone acts as an accessory to theft or robbery, go to s267 and charge them under that. S137(3) robbery also aggravated by offenders being in company

ROBBERY Robbery  s137/ theft+ force (1) A person who commits theft is guilty of robbery if— (a) the person— (i) uses force, or threatens to use force, against another in order to commit the theft; or (ii) uses force, or threatens to use force, against another in order to escape from the scene of the offence; and (b) the force is used, or the threat is made, at the time of, or immediately before or after, the theft. REMEMBER If two or more people jointly commit robbery in company, each is guilty of aggravated robbery [s 137(2)]. Aggravated robbery will also be relevant if a weapon has been used s5AA. 1) Theft o The prosecution must first prove that the accused committed theft (appropriates property belonging to another; does so with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property or seriously encroaching on their rights in the property; and acts dishonestly). 2) Force was used or threatened immediately, before or at the time of the theft o This element will not be met if the force was applied, or the fear induced, after the property was appropriated: R v Foster (1995)

o If the accused used force, or put or sought to put the victim in fear of the use of force, at any point in time prior to the appropriation being complete, this element will be satisfied: R v Hale (1978) o The force does not need to have been applied directly to the victim’s body. It is sufficient if it was applied to items carried by the victim: R v Clouden [1987] * An implied threat may be enough (B and R v DPP). The victim said that they hadn’t felt particularly scared or threatened, just shocked. In the absence of an explicit threat that force will be used, an implicit threat of force can still amount to robbery, even if the victim did not feel threatened. 3) The conduct (the violence or threat of violence) was committed in order to carry out the theft or to escape. o This test does not require proof that the force, or the threat of force, caused the victim to part with the property taken, R v Foster (1995). o As the purpose of the use or threat of force must have been to commit theft, this element will not be met if the accused used, or threatened to use, force upon the victim for a different reason, but upon seeing an unanticipated opportunity created by his or her actions, stole the victim’s property.

DEFENCE Claim of right Any defence to theft will also be a defence to robbery. For example, an honest (even if unreasonable) belief in a legal or equitable claim of right to property is a defence to theft (and robbery) if the accused honestly believed in his or her entitlement to take the property (R v Skivvington [1968] he or she would not be ‘dishonest’. R v Robinson  D was owed money, got into a fight with the women’s husband. Money fell on the floor and they took it. Convicted of robbery and appealed. Conviction was quashed, there was no theft as they had an honest belief that they were entitled to the money. R v Bedford  The majority of the court (Duggan and Vanstone JJ) held that an aggrieved heroin addict was potentially not guilty of attempted robbery on the basis of an honest but mistaken belief in a claim of right to a refund from the dealer for a defective batch of heroin. She was not ‘dishonest’....