Property Offences

Question 1

Two broad categories of property offences.

Answer 1

1. Offences of dishonesty

2. Offences of destroying or damaging property

Question 2

Black v Carmichael

Answer 2

Appropriation of property. Temporary deprivation constitutes mens rea of theft.

Question 3

Grant v Allan

Answer 3

Under Scots law, taking information does not constitute theft.

Question 4

Milne v Tudhope

Answer 4

Builders held property on ransom. Temporary deprivation can constitute theft.

Question 5

Dewar v HMA

Answer 5

Corporeal moveable property can be stolen. Coffins could be stolen but not dead bodies.

Question 6

HMA v Forbes

Answer 6

Housebreaking. Must show intention to steal (theft).

Question 7

Kerr v HMA

Answer 7

Embezzlement. Failure to fulfil authority.

Question 8

Allenby v HMA

Answer 8

Embezzlement. Mens rea of dishonesty.

Question 9

Flynn v HMA

Answer 9

Robbery. Use of violence associated with acquiring property for a robbery charge to apply.

Question 10

Morrison v HMA

Answer 10

Conviction of robbery justified as there was sufficient evidence of force/violence in course of evidence at trial .

Question 11

Adock v Archibald

Answer 11

Fraud. Despite no gain, the practical result was enough to constitute fraud. Extends beyond economic loss.

Question 12

Richards v HMA

Answer 12

Material misrepresentation = fraud. Induced sale of house on false pretence of living in it but in fact wanted to make changes to the house.

Question 13

Mather v HMA

Answer 13

Misrepresentation must be the means bringing about practical result.

Question 14

HMA v Browne

Answer 14

Actual possession of stolen property is no longer necessary for the actus reus of reset. Being ‘privy to the retention’ of property by another will suffice.

Question 15

Latta v Herron

Answer 15

Wilful blindness mens rea for reset. Blinding yourself to the obviousness that the goods where stolen.

Question 16

Forbes v HMA

Answer 16

Criminative circumstances mens rea for reset. Incriminating circumstances was enough to deem that he knew the painting was stolen.

Question 17

HMA v Wilson

Answer 17

Malicious mischief can apply if no damage to patrimonial loss. Deliberate interference with another’s property = malicious mischief.

Question 18

Byrne v HMA

Answer 18

Fire-raising distinguished between wilful fire raising (intention) and culpable/reckless fire raising (recklessness). Distinct mens rea. No doctrine of transferred intent to other damaged items.