This document summarizes key legal cases related to theft, robbery, burglary, criminal damage, and aggravated criminal damage. It discusses elements of these offenses such as the actus reus of appropriation in theft cases like Morris, Lawrence, and Hinks. It also covers mens rea requirements like the two-part test for dishonesty established in Ghosh and the need for intent to permanently deprive established in cases like Velumyl and Lavender. The document discusses legal definitions and cases related to elements of offenses like the use of force in robbery (Corcoran v Anderton), what constitutes entry in burglary (Collins, Brown, Ryan), and what qualifies as criminal damage (Roe v

1. KEY CASES!
THEFT – ACTUS REUS
Appropriation
Morris
Switched labels ‘adverse interference’ – appropriation is assuming any of
the rights of the owner.
Lawrence
Student offered taxi driver open wallet. Issue of consent. Held there was an
appropriation even though consent.
Gomez
Manager persuaded to sell electrical goods worth £17,000 with two false
cheques. COA held that had to be ‘adverse interference’ as in Morris and
quashed conviction. HOL on point followed Lawrence and said it was
appropriation even though consent.
Hinks
Younger woman befriended man with low IQ he gave her £60,000 and TV,
man understood value of money etc.
HOL by majority said it was appropriation even though valid gift.
Property
Kelly and Lindsay
Dead bodies only become property when they have commercial use – owned
by hospital.
Oxford v Moss
Examination paper not property therefore information cannot be stolen.
Belonging to another
Turner
Convicted of stealing his own car, garage in ‘possession or control’ of it.
Woodman
Convicted of stealing scrap metal, as company still in ‘possession or
control’.

2. Hall, Klineburg and Marsden
Property belongs to another where it is received under an obligation to be
dealt with in a particular way.
Gilks
Must be a legal obligation. Gambling pay out.
MENS REA
Dishonesty
Ghosh
Established two-part test
1. OBJECTIVE Is it dishonest by ordinary standards?
2. SUBJECTIVE If so, did the d. know it was dishonest by those
standards?
DON’T FORGET S.2 THREE SITUATIONS, WHERE NOT DISHONEST.
INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE
Velumyl
Took money from office safe which he was intending to return. Convicted
of theft of the original bank notes.
Lavender
Took doors from a council property under repair and used them to replace
damaged doors in his girlfriends flat, doors and flat owned by same council.
Treated doors as his own – convicted.
Lloyd
Borrowed cinema films to copy. Replaced undamaged so no theft. ‘The
goodness, the virtue, the practical value’. Must be lost.
Easom
Case of conditional intent. Looked in handbag, replaced it when nothing of
value. Conviction quashed. Argument to convict Easom law should be
changed to ‘intent to temporarily deprive’!
ROBBERY
Robinson
There must be a completed theft. If any element is missing no theft- no
robbery.
Corcoran v Anderton
D. hit women in back and tugged at bag. She let go and it fell. D’s ran off
without bag. Held it was a temporary appropriation so guilty of robbery.

3. Dawson and James
Pushed victim, lost balance, other d. took wallet. Convicted of robbery –
had been force.
Clauden
Wrenched shopping basket from v’s hand.
Hale
Force must be used immediately before or at the time of the theft. In Hale
one d. went upstairs to take jewellery, the other tied up householder.
Argued theft complete as soon as d. picked up jewellery box – force not
used at time of stealing. COA upheld convictions on basis of continuing act,
theft was ongoing, force used for the purpose of robbery.
Lockley
Shoplifted cans of beer, shopkeeper tried to stop him escaping. Argued
theft complete when used the force. Followed Hale and convicted. Court
followed Hale and convicted.
BURGLARY
Entry
Collins
D. must make ‘an effective and substantial entry!
Brown
D. must make ‘effective entry’ only. Standing on pavement but leaning into
shop.
Ryan
‘Effective entry’ not followed, trapped in window. However, convicted of
burglary s91 (a).
Building
B and S Leathley and Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould
Building must have some permanence. First was a 25 ‘freezer container,
lorry trailer with wheels used for storage for a year for second.
Part of a building

4. Walkington
D. went into counter area of shop, opened till. Not an area where
customers were permitted to go.
Trespasser
Collins
Not a trespasser, girl invited him in.
Smith and Jones
Went beyond permission to enter premises/fathers’ house to steal two TVs.
CRIMINAL DAMAGE
Roe v Kingerlee
D. smeared mud on the walls of a police cell, cost £7 to clear it off. Held
could be damage even though permanent.
Hardman v CC of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
CND protesters painted silhouettes of Hiroshima nucleur bomb on pavement
with water soluble paint. Paint removed by council with water jets. D’s
argued the rain would have washed it away. Court said this was damage.
Blake v DPP
Wrote biblical quotation on a concrete pillar outside Parliament. Had to be
cleaned off, therefore criminal damage. Court said God could not consent to
damage and that what he did was not capable of protecting property in the
Gulf, despite the subjective nature of the s5(2)(a) and (b) defence.
A (a juvenile) v R
D spat at policeman and landed on uniform. Not damage as could be wiped
of with a wet cloth. No stain, no cost, so no damage.
Morphitis v Salmon
Held scratch on a scaffolding pole was not damage – scaffolding poles likely
to get scratched. However scratch on a car would be damage.
Gemmell and Richards
Established that in terms of mens rea the subjective test (Cunningham) for
recklessness was the correct test, and Caldwell Recklessness (objective) was

5. now bad law. Two young boys set fire to newspapers which threw under
wheelie bin, spread to premises and caused £1m of damage.
Denton
Worked in cotton mill, thought his employer had told him to start a fire to
the mill so he could make an insurance claim. Conviction quashed his
conviction as he had a defence under s5(2)(a) – lawful excuse: believed
owner would consent to the damage.
Jaggard v Dickinson
s5 lawful excuse applies to basic offence, even when intoxicated mistake. D
who was drunk broke into what she thought was her friends house, because
she believed her friend would consent to this (she did). However she had
mistaken the house and actually broke into the house of another person.
Conviction quashed by Divisional Court as belief can be honestly held
whether it is caused by intoxication, stupidity, forgetfulness etc.
Hunt
Set fire to some bedding in order to draw attention to the fact that thefire
alarm wasn’t working at the old people’s flats his wife worked at. Court
refused defence of ‘other property at risk and in need of immediate
protection.’ Convicted of criminal damage.
AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE
Steer
Fired three shots at home of former business partner, causing damage to the
house. Acquitted as danger to life must come from damage.
Webster
Three d’s pushed a large stone from a bridge onto a train underneath. The
stone caused debris to shower the passengers although the stone did not fall
into the carriage. COA quashed conviction because judge misdirected the
jury that an intention to endanger life by the stone falling was sufficient for
guilt. However substituted a conviction based on recklessness.
Warwick
Rammed a police car and threw bricks at it causing the rear window to
smash and shower the police with glass. Convicted: guilt does not depend on
whether the brick hits or misses windscreen but whether he intended to hit
it and intended that the damage from this should endanger life, or whether
he was reckless as to that outcome.
Sangha

6. Set fire to a mattress and two chairs in neighbours flat. People in adjoining
building were not at risk. Applying the now bad law of Caldwell, he was
convicted. Under the now subjective test he probably would not be
convicted.
Merrick
Employed to remove some old television cable. Whilst doing this he left the
live cable exposed for about six minutes. No one was injured but he was
charged with endangering life because of the ‘damage’ to the wiring. He
was convicted. The householder would have also been convicted if he’d
done the same even though he owned the property. If Merrick had been
installing new wiring and left that exposed he would have been not guilty –
no damage. Yet the act and danger are the same.
Miller
HOL said arson could be committed by an omission where the d accidentally
started a fire and failed to do anything to prevent damage from that fire.