Theft 2.pdf

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Property Offences Exam Notes
Criminal Law (Manchester Metropolitan University)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Criminal Law (Manchester Metropolitan University)
Downloaded by Nasir Ahmed (snasirahmed962@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|3399738

Johnluis Pitto 17031153
Theft – S.1 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”
Ghosh Test (Applies to all offences): Was D’s behaviour dishonest by standards of the
reasonable person?
Actus Reus
Appropriates – S.3: Assuming the rights as its rightful owner.
- Morris: No need to assume all rights of an owner, one right of ownership will suffice.
- Corcoran v Anderton: Touching property is sufficient for appropriation.
- Gomez: Appropriation found where D assumes owner rights.
- Hinks: Can be guilty of stealing a gift.
- Atakpu: Continuing appropriation (at later date) - cars rented in Italy sold in UK.
Property – S.4: Includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in
action (legally enforceable) and other intangible property.
- Marshall: Things in action = Personal right of property – re-selling tickets.
- Oxford v Moss: Secret info cannot be stolen - exam.
- Williams: Possible to steal someone’s credit card balance.
Belonging to Another – S.5: Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having
possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest.
- Turner No2: Can steal own property.
- Kelly: Can be in possession of unlawful items.
- Woodman: We are deemed to be in possession of things on our land.
- Williams v Phillips: Items in bins are still in owner’s possession.
- Shadrokh-Cigari: If property handed by mistake – person handing it is in control.
- Moynes v Cooper: Overpayment = duty to return.
- Hinks: Can be guilty of stealing a gift.
- Clowes No2: Beneficiary of Will has propriety right
- Bonner: Can steal property which is jointly owned – Selling without permission.
- Gresham: D had duty under S5(4) to return money - taking another’s property.
Mens Rea
Dishonestly – S.2: If he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to
deprive the other of it, or consent.
- Subjective Test: D can honestly mistakenly believe.
- S.2(2): Still theft if willing to pay for the property.
- Ghosh Test: Was D’s behaviour dishonest by standards of the reasonable person?
Ivey v Genting Casino: The defendant must have realised that ordinary honest people would
regard his behaviour as dishonest.
Intention permanently to deprive – S.6: Where D intends that the victim will never get their
property back again.
- Deals with cases where D intends that V will get something back (e.g. Using
someone’s credit card money and then handing them their credit card back – value
has been used; using someone’s text book and cutting out pages and then giving
them the book back, etc).
lOMoARcPSD|3399738

- Lloyd: Removing value not equivalent to outright taking.
- Easom: Checks for valuables and finds none = appropriate charge is attempted theft -
not enough for theft.
- Wheatley and another Commissioner: No need for permanent deprivation, intention
is sufficient.
- Velumyl: D did not intend to return the exact coins or notes taken, so he must have
intended to permanently deprive his employers of them.
- DPP v Lavender: D had the intention to permanently deprive under S6(1) as he
treated the doors as his own to dispose of regardless of the owners right.
- Mitchell: Stolen car damaged and abandoned = did not have the intention of
permanently depriving.
Burglary – S.9
“Burglary requires a trespasser to enter into a building, or part of a building, with the intent
to steal, or the intent to cause criminal damage or GBH”
Two Types:
S.9(1a): Intends to steal upon entering the building.
- Becomes aggravated if D has any weapons at point of entry (S.10 - Kelly)
S.9(1b): Once inside the building, intends to steal.
- Becomes aggravated if D has any weapons once inside the building (S.10 - Kelly)
- S10 - O’Leary: Picked up knife once inside the building.
Francis: Leaves weapons outside = No aggravation.
Actus Reus
Enters:
- Collins: Must be effective and substantial entry.
- Brown: Hands through window = effective entry.
- Ryan: Arm and head in window = jury found a valid entry.
As a trespasser:
- Collins: Where V mistakenly permits D to enter, D enters as a trespasser.
- Smith and Jones: D entered the building in excess of his permission = trespasser.
Building or part of a building:
- Stevens v Gourley:
- B and S v Leathley: Freezing container disconnected from its chassis could be part of
a building.
- Walkington: Restricted areas constitute part of a building.
- Headley v Webb: 2 semi-detached houses can constitute a single building.
- Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould: Lorry trailer used for storage = not a
building due to wheels (vehicle).
Mens Rea
Intention, or reckless to enter as a trespasser: S9(1a) – Must have intent when entering.
The Ultieior Offence: Theft; Robbery; etc.
- AG (1 and 2 of 1979): Gives us conditional intent and solves the problem of Easom. In
cases of attempted theft, D doesn't need to have a specific item in mind to have the
required mens rea of intent.
lOMoARcPSD|3399738

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”
D MUST have committed a theft: Therefore, the prosecution need to satisfy the five
elements for the offence of theft (R v Guy) and the additional elements from section 8 to be
liable for a robbery.
Actus Reus
Force: P v DPP - Force must be bodily and not simply against Vs property. It must be more
than negligible, but need not be serious.
- Dawson: A push and a pickpocket will suffice.
- Corcoran v Anderton: Tugging at a handbag that fell to the floor was sufficient force.
- Monaghan and Monaghan: Minor bodily contact when picking Vs pocket will not
suffice.
Fear of Force:
- R v DPP: Courts have interpreted ‘fear’ in line with apprehension that force will be
used.
- Khan: Force must happen then and there, cannot fear later.
- Where D threatens force in the future in order to gain Vs property, the appropriate
charge is blackmail.
Seeking Fear of Force:
- Tennant: If V is not in fear, Ds intention is sufficient – Ulterior Mens Rea.
Immediately before, or at the time:
- Hale: Even if appropriation by D1 might have occurred before the force used by D2,
the act of theft could be a continuing appropriation.
Mens Rea
D must use the force ‘in order to’ steal:
- Robbery as a consequence will not suffice.
lOMoARcPSD|3399738

Fraud by False Representation – S.2 Fraud Act 2006
“Dishonestly makes a false representation and intends by making it, to make a gain for
himself or another, or cause loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss”
Actus Reus
Makes a false representation: Any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of the person making it or any other person.
- DPP v Ray: Not paying for food – implied representation to pay = Representation can
be made by words or conduct.
- Charles: Cheque – implied funds on it.
- Lambie: Use of empty credit card.
Representation is false if:
- S.2(a): It is untrue or misleading
- S.2(b): or the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
- Idress v DPP: D may make a representation indirectly as an agent.
- Barnard (Pre FA 2006): Ds dress provided an implied deception sufficient for liability.
Mens Rea: S.2(2b)
D knows the statement is false:
- Augunas: Includes deliberately closing your eyes to a risk.
Dishonestly - Ghosh Test: Was D’s behaviour dishonest by standards of the reasonable
person?
Intends to make a gain for himself or cause a loss: S.5
- Not a result or consequence crime: Guilty once the fraudulent representation is
made.
- Gilbert: D must intend to cause the gain or loss by her conduct.
- R v King and Stockwell – Becomes theft when D gets money out of a False
Representation.
- R v Nabina – Committed an original fraud by false representation (to obtain a credit
card) - Does not mean D commits the offence every time the card is used.
lOMoARcPSD|3399738

Obtaining Services Dishonestly – S.11 Fraud Act 2006
A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services for himself or
another by a dishonest act, and a person obtains services in breach of this subsection if
they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or
in respect of them, he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in
respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and when he obtains them,
he knows that payment is being made available or that they might be, but intends that
payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.
Actus Reus
An Act: Must be positive, not by omission.
Obtain paid for service: A service that is free does not satisfy the act.
- Sofroniou: Credit cards can be a paid for service.
- S.11 is a result crime.
For himself or another.
Mens Rea
person?
D knows they should pay for the service but does not intend to.
Making off Without Payment – S.3 Theft Act 1978
“A person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is
required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or
expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence”
Actus Reus
Makes off:
- Brooks v Brooks – No need to be sneaky about leaving, can leave blatantly obvious.
- Vincent/Hammond: Where V allows D to leave without payment, he does not ‘make
off’ for purposes of S.3 = Fraud by False Representation.
Goods supplied or services done.
Without having paid as required or expected.
On-the-spot payment is required:
- Troughton v Metropolitan Police (1987) Crim LR 138 – If contract is breached
fundamentally, no payment is required.
Mens Rea
person?
Knowing that payment on the spot is expected and required.
Intention to avoid payment:
- Allen – D must have the intention to ‘permanently’ avoid payment at the time D
makes off = Generous to Defendants.
lOMoARcPSD|3399738

Theft 2.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Theft 2.pdf

Similar to Theft 2.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Theft 2.pdf