Property Offences Scenario Plans Flashcards
PROPERTY OFFENCES (14 cards)
Theft - Introduction
Theft is a property offence defined in s(1) of the Theft Act 1968 as ‘dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’.
Theft - Appropriation
In order to establish the actus reus of theft, we must establish whether the defendant has appropriated property belonging to another. Appropriation is explained in s(3) of the statute as ‘an assumption by a person of the rights of an owner to an appropriation’, or behaving/dealing with property as if it is your own, as shown in R V Pitham and Hehl. Appropriation takes place the first time D assumes the rights of the owner, as shown in R V Atakpu and Abrahams. This means that a defendant can assume rights later, for example failing to return a borrowed dress and selling it.
*Theft - Consent
Appropriation can take place with consent, if the act is dishonest, as shown in R V Gomez. Gifts may also amount to theft as shown in R V Hinks, where the grantee may have been dishonest in acquiring the gift.
Theft - Property
For the next part of the actus reus, it must be established that it is property that has been appropriated. This is explained in s(4) of the Theft Act 1968. Property is defined to be money, real property, personal property, things in action or other intangible property. Things that cannot be stolen include land, wild plants, and knowledge as shown in Oxford V Moss.
Theft - Belonging to Another
Furthermore, it must be established that the property appropriated is belonging to another as explained under s(5). This includes physical ownership, as well as control, possession or a proprietary interest as shown in R V Webster. If property is left for another, they remain under the ownership of the original party - as shown in R V Turner, and sometimes property is under obligation, this means it must be used in a particular way, or it becomes theft, as shown in Davidge V Bunnett. APPLY
Theft - Dishonest Act to Permanently Deprive
In order to find a defendant guilty for theft, the mens rea must also be established. The mens rea for theft tells us that the act must be dishonest and with the intention of permanently depriving the other. The motive of the act is not relevant in establishing dishonesty. R V Barton and Booth establish the test for dishonesty, asking two questions: what were D’s actual state of belief of the fact, and was D’s conduct dishonest by ordinary standards. However s2(1) of the act states that an act is not dishonest if the defendant believes: they have the right to deprive, they would have consent, or the owner cant be discovered. If the jury decides the defendant had a genuine belief in one of these factors - this is enough to satisfy regardless of how unreasonable it is, as shown in R V Small. APPLY
BURGLARY INTRODUCTION
burglary is defined in s9 of the theft act 1968 and is broke into two offences, s91a, and s91b. 591a is defined as entering any building or part of a building as a trespasser with an intent to steal, inflict goh or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it. s91b is defined as ‘having entered a building or part of the building as a trespasser, they steal or attempt to steal anything or inflict or attempt to inflict gbh on any person within’.
BURGLARY S91A MENS REA
the mens rea of s91a includes, intent or subjective recklessness to trespass, and either intent to commit gbh, theft or criminal damage at point of entry. this was shown in rv ryans. subjective recklessness is defined in cunningham as being aware the risk exists.
BURGLARY S91A ACTUS REUS
the actus reus of 291a is the entry of a building as a trespasser. rv ryans established that entry does not have to be substantial or effective, as long as there is trespass. case law has given boundaries on what falls under the meaning of buildings, r v rodmell established outbuildings class. fixed structures under b and s v leathley, r v walking ton established that parts of buildings with no permission classes as trespass. however, moveable structures which doent include boathouses or caravans do not fall inside the boundaries as shown in norfolk constabulary v seeking. anyone who does not have permission is a trespasser as shown in r v collins. r v smith and jones shows that permissions can be limited, and anything beyond this can be considered trespass.
BURGLARY 291B MENS REA
the mens rea of s91b includes, intent or subjective recklessness to trespass and intent to commit gbh, or steal whilst inside the building. the defendant must know they are a trespasser as shown in rv collins. the mens rea does not require intention at the time of entry.
BURGLARY S91B ACTUS REA
the actus reus of s91b is entry of the building as a trespasser. r v ryans established that entry does not have to be substantial or effective, as long as there is trespass. case law has given boundaries on what falls under the meaning of buildings, r v rodmell established outbuildings class. fixed structures under b and s v leathley, r v walking ton established that parts of buildings with no permission classes as trespass. however, moveable structures which doent include boathouses or caravans do not fall inside the boundaries as shown in norfolk constabulary v seeking. anyone who does not have permission is a trespasser as shown in r v collins. r v smith and jones shows that permissions can be limited, and anything beyond this can be considered trespass. furthermore, a theft (rv waters) or gbh (dpp v smith) must have been committed.
ROBBERY INTRODUCTION
robbery is defined in s8 of the theft act 1968 as using force, or seeking to put someone in fear of force, immediately before or during a theft.
ROBBERY MENS REA
the mens rea of robbery is intent to use force to steal, and the intention of permanently depriving another dishonestly. in rv dawson and james, the judge ruled that force was to be treated as an ordinary word. r v waters shows that a theft must be completed the intention of the defendant must be to permanently deprive the victim, and must be dishonest.
ROBBERY ACTUS REUS
in order to establish the actus reus of robbery, we must establish that there has been a completed theft and a use of force, or a threat of force immediately before or during. a completed theft can be established if the defendant has appropriated property belonging to another as shown in r v waters. the use of force does not need to be substantial, as shown in r v dawson and James but it must be more than trivial as shown in p v dpp. the force does not need to be directly on the victim as shown in r v clouden. the case of b and r v app, it was shown that the victim does not need to be threatened, as long as the defendant has attempted to put them in fear. rv hale established that the force can be established if it used to facilitate the theft.
