Attempts, Theft, Robbery content Flashcards
(17 cards)
INTRODUCTION: Theft
D could be guilty of theft under the Theft Act 1968 ,section 1, if D dishonestly ,2, appropriated, 3, property, 4, belonging to another, 5, with Intention to permanently deprive the other of it. Theft is an offence triable either way, carrying a maximum sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine when tried in the Crown Court.
INTRODUCTION: Attempts
Attempts are defined under the criminal Attempts Act 1981. When a person intends to commit a defence which are triable on indictement and does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, they can be guilty of an attempt.
INTRODUCTION: Robbery
Under Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968, a person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and 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 fear on any person of being subjected to force.
ACTUS REUS: Attempts
Defendant commits an act which is more than merely preparatory
greyhound case , “quote”
R v Gullefer “embarked on the crime proper”
- points a gun, “ur not going to like this”
- R v Jones EVEN WHEN ACTS ARE LEFT TO PERFORM “embarked on the actual commission”
- walked past the Post Office
- R v Campbell, not embarked on actual commission
- pedo in toilets case, wimpy kid guy name
- R v Rowley, not attempt, prepared the ground for an attempt
- boy in toilet with tape and rope
R v Geddes, did not attempt false imprisonment, only prepared but did not embark on crime proper (being found with equipment)
- rapist knocks on woman’s door
- R v Toothilll - attempted burglary bcs he knocked.. with intent to rape
MENS REA: Attempts
what?
case?
Intended to harm her not kill her
Intention to commit an offence. Criminal Attempts Act 1981
R v Mohan - an attempt to drive at a police officer
R v Whybrow - must intend offence so for attempted murder - Intend to kill , attempt not to cause GBH
ACTUS REUS : Theft
appropriating ,3, property ,4, belonging to another ,5,
Property
Section 1 (4)
money, real, tangible, non-tangible
s 4 (2) things severed from land
s4(3) mushroom and plant for reward(receive benefit or payment)/sale(selling)/commercial (meal,product,skincare)
s 4 (4) wild animals in natural habitats are not stolen, if captured, tamed, or reduced to one’s control can be(if someone owned them)
appropriation
- Taxi and wallet
- Swapped pork prices
- Yeah my friend has a real cheque
- Mate in prison
- Gifts for carer
Section 3
Any assumption of the rights of the owner/later assumption by not returning (selling, keeping,destroying)
-Lawrence v MPC - victim offered driver their wallet - STILL APPROPRIATION REGARDLESS OF CONSENT
R v Morris - swaps price on a joint of pork - Adverse to owner’s right - only one right needed to be taken
- R v Gomez LEADING CASE a manager was enticed to accept a fake cheque , still appropriation,consent is irrelevant
R v Pintham and Hehl - Offering to sell was sufficient to amount to appropriation (assumed right of owner)
R v Hinks - carer for a man of limited intelligence persuaded him to give her series of gifts, all her savings, even gifts can be appropriation
MENS REA: Theft
first section = meaning, cases:
- TFL tickets
- Doors
- movie tapes
- money from work
- investing money
- deciding not to steal
- 500 quid for your car
- pawning
-stealing car and leaving it perfectly intact
second section
- 3 conditions
- stole empty car
- test
intention to permanently deprive, 6
= Intention to treat things as his own to dispose of regardless of others’ rights.
The borrowing/lending period can be IPD if in a period or circumstance making it equivalent to outright taking or disposal
- R v Marshall treating it as own to dispose of regardless of TFL’s rights
- DPP v Lavender - treating it as own to dispose of regardless of council’s rights
- R v Lloyd - when all its goodness and virtue has gone, lord lane cj
- R v Velumyl -returning similar property is IPD
- R v Fernandes -risking the loss of property is IPD
R v Easom - conditional intent is insuffiecient
- R v Raphael - condition on return is IPD
- 6(2) pawning (parts with a condition on its return that may not be able to be performed) without owner’s knowledge is IPD
- R v Mitchell (stealing a car and leaving it is not IPD, no profit/dispose like intention
-stealing car and leaving it perfectly intact
dishonestly, 2
when a person is NOT dishonest 2(1) a/b/c
a) believed they had a right in law
b) Believed they would have the other’s consent
c) person cannot be discovered taking reasonable steps
- R v Small - stole empty car-merely genuine belief
- Ivey v genting casionos aka barton and booth test (crim)knowing what d knew factually would would the ordinary person deem it dishonest?
ACTUS REUS : robbery
-what : f
-pickpockets
-resisting a bag being stolen
-threat then stole
-finger gun
- scream scares thief
what: c
- grabbed victim stole jewellery then tied them up
-used force after theft
steals + uses force
- R v Dawson and James - jury decides if it amounts to force, knudge is sufficient force ‘in order to do so’- without it theft would not have taken place
- R v Clauden - wrenched bag (resistance=force) force and appropriation can happen at the same time
- R v Donaghy and Marshall -donna ngai mbongo - must be before/in doing so/or in order, not robbery
R v Bentham (philosophy is usually about things not intermediately carried out)
does not matter if the threat could not be carried out
- corcoran v anderton - robbery occurred as soon as appropriation took place didn’t get bag (pulling hard enough to make it fall out of the victim’s grasp gave the d sufficient control =assumption of the owner’s rights. =appropriation.)
coincidence
immediately before or at the time
- R v Hale - robbery is a continous act and a matter for the jury
- R v Lockley -theft can continue
MENS REA: Robbery
intent to use force, R v Mohan
