Task One: Name the following cases, and then assign them to one of the three areas of property offence That’s a little bit of a hinky gift... I’m not sure its appropriate Nobody would dispute it’s art. I really am an honest surgeon... at least I think so. You may have been Seeking a building to burgle, but you failed. Lockily you hadn’t left the premises when you thumped me Mama mia! Is that how much taxis cost? Finders keepers? That’s (golf) balls! But this little old car couldn’t be more useless! White socks are safe on ladders. But I couldn’t actually touch anything.... Door to door is still theft (even if they both belong to you flower) See... looking is not the same as taking professor. But Daddy said I could go in his house. Pulled an old bag? Still liable! A nudge is a good as a shove or a thump.
Task Two: Complete the boxes below with the definitions of the different offences and their origins (which bit of the Theft Act 1968 it comes from). Dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. Completed theft with force or the threat of force immediately before or at the time of, in order to steal On entering building or part of a building as a trespasser, with the intent to commit an ulterior offence under 9(2) Having entered the building or part of building as a trespasser and committing GBH or theft or attempting either.
Robbery Can you complete the brainstorm? Doesn’t have to scare the victim or even be possible Robinson Clouden Hale The violence and the theft must be related. Lockley Corcoran v Anderton Theft is a continuing act, and thus goes on until all elements are present or it is stopped Dawson & James Slightly different interpretation than s.1-7 Theft Act 1968 Bentham
Burglary Can you complete the brainstorm? Walkington Knowing or recklessly Effective, not substantial Go beyond the permission granted Entry Stevens & Gourley Brown Includes boats, caravans etc. Jones, Smith Collins Where people live Trespass A structure of considerable size and importance intended to be permanent or at least endure for a considerable time. Seeking & Gould Building Dawson & James B&S v Leathley Ryan
Part B Problem Questions Sean goes to his favourite corner shop. In the shop he places some items of food in the wire shopping basket that is provided for shoppers. He also hides a small bottle of whisky in his coat pocket. He then removes the label from a high-priced CD that is in the charts, replaces it with the label from a specially reduced CD on the shelf below, and places the in the basket. He goes to the checkout and only pays for the items in the basket. Outside the shop Sean sees a mountain bike that was there when he went in and which he remembers seeing there at the same time the previous week He rides home on it alongside a canal. On the way he notices a personal CD player on a table on boards a canal longboat that is moored to the towpath. He climbs aboard and takes the CD player. He leaves the bike leaning against a fence at the end of his road and goes home. Discuss Sean’s liability for his actions  What are the actions he may be liable for?
This is (the beginning of) a B grade answer. What are its strengths? Introduction identifies the issues and the legal basis The question involves the issues of theft and burglary. These two offences are dealt with under the Theft Act 1968 The offence of theft is dealt with under s.1(1). Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another, with the intention to permanently deprive. The first situation to look at is putting the whisky in his coat pocket. The whisky is clearly property satisfying s.4 as it is tangible property. Sean clearly satisfies s.3 appropriation, as he interferes with the rights of the owner by placing the bottle in his jacket. The whisky belongs to the supermarket, therefore satisfying s.5. Sean also had the intent to deprive and was dishonest according to R v Ghosh. This is therefore theft. What could this student have done to further improve?
Now it’s your turn! How does it compare? If we consider the CD, the key issue is that of appropriation. This is very similar to the case of Morris. In this case the defendant had switched labels in a supermarket. He claimed he could not be guilty as he had not appropriated. He was convicted. This precedent will therefore apply and this defendant will be guilty of theft. CD Price Swapping
Finally... Plan your response to the last couple of issues: