Theft And Robbery Flashcards
(23 cards)
Case for switching labels
R v morris
What does Lawrence/Gomez establish?
Appropriation does not require the absence of consent
What does R v hinks
Appropriation could take place even where there is a voluntary gift.
What case is it where appropriation even if D leaves empty handed
Corocran / Anderton
Appropriation
S.3 defines appropriation as
‘ any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner,’
Appropriation does not require the absence of consent (Lawrence/gomez)
Property
Belonging to another
Belonging to another is defined in s.5 (1) “property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having in it any proprietary right or interest.
Body parts are personal property
Kelly and Lindsay
Value on travel card is intangible property case
Marshall
Section 5 (3)
If property is given to the defendant to be dealt with in a particular way and that is not done, there can be theft ie charity fundraising
Section 5 (4)
If d received property by mistake and fails to return this to the rightful owner could be amount to theft.
Abandoned property may still be deemed as belonging to another case
R v Rostron / R v woodman
R v turner
Sometimes people can acquire a proprietary interest over another persons property
Actus reus of Robbery
Section 8(1) states ‘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 their subjected to force.’
Therefore, as well as the appropriation of property belonging to another force must have been applied immediately before stealing or at the time of doing so and in order to steal. this includes defendant threatening to use force.
Pushing amounted to force (could be slightest touch)
Dawson and James
Wrenching handbag
Clouden
Threat of force
B and R v DPP
Ongoing theft
R v lockley
Men’s rea of theft
The men’s rea of theft requires two elements to be proved:
1) the defendant was dishonest and
2 the defendant must have an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
The theft act 1968 does not define the word dishonesly.
In Ivey v genting casinos 2017, the supreme court outlined an objective test for dishonesty:
what is the dishonesty test?
D has been dishonest by the ordinary standards of a reasonable and honest people.
What is not considered dishonest: believes right in law s2(1)(a)
believes the other consented s2(1)(b).
believes person cannot be discovered s2 (1)(c)
What is the intention to permanently deprive? case?
s6(1) defines an intention to permanently deprive. ‘a person is to be regarded as having the intention to permanently deprive the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of…” this looks at whether it was Ds main aim and purpose to permanently deprive the other ( mohan)
what is R v velumeyl?
The company director took the money from the safe with the intention of paying it back. He was found guilty of theft as he would not be returning the exact banknotes that he took, and therefore had the intention.
mens rea for robbery? case?
It must be proved there is intention to use or threat of force in order to steal. this considers whether it was Ds main aim or purpose to use force in order to steal or whether it was Ds main aim and purpose to threaten t use force in order to steal (Mohan)
