Theft etc Flashcards
SULLIVAN is homeless and sleeping on the street. On a freezing cold winter’s night he is concerned about his health (dying of exposure) so he breaks into a warehouse looking for shelter. Once inside he begins to get warmer and starts looking around the warehouse for something to steal so he can buy food. The warehouse only stores wood and twenty minutes later, angered by his fruitless search SULLIVAN loses his temper and smashes a sink in the warehouse.
Considering only offences relating to burglary (contrary to s. 9 of the Theft Act 1968), which of the below statements is correct?
A. SULLIVAN commits a burglary contrary to s. 9(1)(a) when he breaks into the warehouse looking for shelter.
B. SULLIVAN commits a burglary contrary to s. 9(1)(b) when he looks around the warehouse for something to steal.
C. SULLIVAN commits a burglary contrary to s. 9(1)(b) when he smashes the sink.
D. SULLIVAN does not commit a burglary in this situation.
Section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 states that a person commits burglary when they enter any building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intention of:
• stealing from the building; or
• inflicting grievous bodily harm on anyone in the building; or
• unlawfully damaging the building or anything inside it.
So SULLIVAN does not commit a burglary when he enters the warehouse, making answer A incorrect. Under s. 9(1)(b) of the Act, a burglary is committed when by a person who, having entered as a trespasser:
• commits theft (or attempts to commit theft); or
• inflicts GBH (or attempts to inflict GBH).
So looking around for something to steal and following that with an act of criminal damage would not constitute an offence of burglary under s. 9(1)(b), making answers B and C incorrect. In this situation, SULLIVAN will commit a number of offences - but no burglary (correct answer D).
Theft, Fraud and Related Offences, para 16.4.1
LARIBA is walking along a street carrying a bag which contains a scanning device that enables him to scan the signal from vehicles using a keyless entry system. He does not have a particular victim or vehicle in mind to take but knows that the street he is walking along is home to several wealthy footballers so he is likely to be able to take a high-value car of some description using the scanning device.
Would LARIBA commit an offence of going equipped (contrary to s. 25 of the Theft Act 1968) in this situation?
A. No, the offence only relates to articles that have been used to commit offences of theft, burglary and taking a conveyance without consent.
B. No, as the offence only relates to going equipped with articles to commit offences of theft and burglary.
C. Yes, all the elements of the offence are present in these circumstances.
D. Yes but a direct connection to a specific TWOC offence would need to be established.
The offence of going equipped is committed by a person who has with him/her any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft (s. 25 Theft Act 1968). Section 25(5) of the Theft Act 1968 states that for the purposes of the offence of going equipped, ‘theft’ will include the offence of taking a conveyance without consent (contrary to s. 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968) meaning that LARIBA commits the offence and that answer C is correct (eliminating answers A and B in the process).
Answer D is incorrect a direct connection to a specific burglary/theft/TWOC does not need to be established.
POXSON has been at a house party and is walking home in the early hours of the morning as he has no money for a taxi. He is tired and decides to take a car to get him home. He picks up a brick and smashes the front driver side window of a Ford Mondeo and gets inside intending to drive off in the vehicle. He manages to start the engine of the vehicle and sits in for a few moments before he presses the accelerator but stalls the vehicle almost immediately so that it only moves 4 feet along the road.
Considering the offence of taking a conveyance without consent (contrary to s. 12 of the Theft Act 1968) and the law connected to it, which of the following statements is correct?
A. The offence is complete when POXSON smashes the window of the car and gets inside intending to drive off in it.
B. The offence is complete when POXSON starts the engine of the vehicle and sits in it for a few moments.
C. The offence is complete when POXSON moves the vehicle 4 feet.
D. The small amount of movement means that the offence has not been completed and POXSON should be prosecuted for an offence of attempting to take the conveyance without consent (contrary to s. 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
In law, the offence under s. 12 (TWOC) cannot be attempted as it is a summary only offence, meaning that answer D is incorrect.
A person commits an offence under s. 12 if, without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority he/she takes any conveyance for his/her own or another’s use or, knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such authority, drives it or allows him/herself to be carried on it. This offence requires the conveyance to move so does not occur until POXSON starts the vehicle and it moves 4 feet, eliminating A and B (correct answer C).
SPENCER needs money to pay off a debt and commits a variety of criminal offences to generate cash. He approaches a trailer hitched to a Range Rover motor vehicle parked on the private driveway of a house and intending to steal anything of value in the trailer unties and then pulls back a section of tarpaulin on the trailer to see what is inside.
With regard to the offence of vehicle interference (contrary to s. 9(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981), which of the following comments is correct?
A. As SPENCER’s behaviour was linked to an intention to steal anything in the trailer, the offence is committed.
B. The offence would not be committed by SPENCER because he did not intend to steal the trailer itself.
C. The offence would only be committed if the vehicle and trailer were parked on a road or in a public place.
D. SPENCER does not commit the offence because you can only ‘interfere’ with a motor vehicle.
All the elements of the offence are present as s. 9(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 states that it is an offence for a person to interfere with a motor vehicle or trailer, or with anything carried in or on a motor vehicle or trailer with the intention of committing:
• theft of the motor vehicle or part of it;
• theft of anything carried in or on the motor vehicle or trailer; or
• the offence of taking a conveyance.
AZADANI (a male) and SMITH (a female who is AZADANI’s girlfriend) are walking along a street when they are approached by BLACKBURN and KITE. BLACKBURN produces a gun and points it towards SMITH and as he does this KITE says to AZADANI ‘Give me all your money or she gets blown away!’. AZADANI fears that SMITH will be hurt so hands his wallet to KITE. BLACKBURN and KITE start to run away but then KITE stops and runs back to SMITH and punches her in the face saying ‘You shouldn’t be with him!’ (KITE does this because he is SMITH’s ex-boyfriend and is motivated to hurt her because of this).
Thinking only about the offence of robbery (contrary to s. 8 of the Theft Act 1968), which of the following comments is correct?
A. An offence of robbery has been committed in these circumstances.
B. This is not a robbery as force was threatened (rather than used) in order to steal.
C. This is not a robbery as the threat of force was made towards a third person (not the victim of the theft).
D. This is not a robbery as although force was used, it was not used in order to steal.
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 there subjected to force (s. 8 Theft Act 1968). Answers B and C are incorrect as a threat of force against a third party in order to steal will suffice (as long as the third party is aware of the threat). Answer D is incorrect as the threat of force + the theft gives you the offence of robbery - the assault on KITE has nothing to do with the robbery.
BUSHELL is visited by HALEEM (an insurance company agent) to fill out an application for life insurance. BUSHELL wants to pay less for insurance so lies about the fact that he smokes. HALEEM asks BUSHELL if he smokes; BUSHELL replies ‘No’. They fill out a form where BUSHELL signs to say that what he has declared is true (including the fact that he does not smoke) and BUSHELL signs the form. HALEEM then states that BUSHELL will have to take a urine test which BUSHELL realises will expose him as a smoker. He refuses the test and tells HALEEM to leave as he no longer wants insurance.
In respect of the offence of fraud by failing to disclose information (contrary to s. 3 of the Fraud Act 2006) and the law connected to it, which of the following is correct?
A. A failure to disclose offence can only be committed by a written omission, so the offence would be committed but only when BUSHELL signs the application form.
B. As BUSHELL did not obtain any life insurance this is an attempt to commit the offence of fraud by failing to disclose.
C. A failure to disclose can be oral or written so BUSHELL commits this offence when he lies to HALEEM and also when he signs the application for life insurance.
D. The offence under s. 3 is committed where a person is entrusted with another person’s financial arrangements (a ‘fiduciary’ relationship) - that does not exist in this situation.
Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 states that a person commits an offence if he/she dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which [he/she] is under a legal duty to disclose, and intends, by failing to disclose the information to make a gain for [him/herself] or another, or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. The failure to disclose can be made by an oral or written omission, making answer A incorrect. Once that failure takes place with the relevant mens rea (intention etc) the offence is complete - this is not an ‘attempt’, making answer B incorrect. Answer D is incorrect as the legal duty to disclose derives from a variety of situations not exclusively where a ‘fiduciary’ relationship exists as it could also derive from assumed good faith (such as failing to disclose a serious illness in order to reduce health insurance premiums).
TAPSTER is using an internet chat room with DODD and ANGUS. TAPSTER has an argument with DODD and becomes so angry he writes a message ‘I’m gonna kill DODD next week’ and sends it to ANGUS. TAPSTER does not intend to make ANGUS think he is going to kill DODD, he is just incredibly angry and is venting his frustration. Unfortunately, ANGUS sees the message and believes it and contacts the police; DODD never sees the message and is oblivious to its existence.
In relation to the offence of threats to kill (contrary to s. 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861) which of the following comments is correct?
A. The offence has not been committed because TAPSTER did not intend ANGUS to fear that DODD would be killed.
B. The offence has not been committed as the threat was to kill a person in the future, not there and then.
C. The offence has not been committed because the person who was to be killed was unaware of the threat.
D. The offence has not been committed because the offence cannot be committed via a third party.
An offence under s. 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is committed by a person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another a threat, intending that the other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person. TAPSTER did not have the relevant intention so answer A is correct. The threat can be to kill in the future (making answer B incorrect). It does not matter if the person who would be killed does not know of the threat (making answer C incorrect). The threat can be delivered by a 3rd party (making answer D incorrect).
MARSHALL is struggling to pay his house bills. GAFFNEY is an electrician and a friend of MARSHALL’s and suggests that he can divert the electricity supply from ROBERTSON’s house (who is MARSHALL’s next-door neighbour) so that MARSHALL’s electricity is supplied for free. MARSHALL agrees to this and GAFFNEY diverts the electricity supply allowing MARSHALL to use it to power his electrical needs. O’RIORDAN visits MARSHALL who tells O’RIORDAN what GAFFNEY has done. O’RIORDAN thinks this is hilarious and turns on every electrical device in MARSHALL’s house causing a large amount of electricity to be wasted.
Who has committed the offence of abstracting electricity (contrary to s. 13 of the Theft Act 1968)?
A. GAFFNEY and MARSHALL only.
B. MARSHALL and O’RIORDAN only.
C. GAFFNEY, MARSHALL and O’RIORDAN.
D. Only MARSHALL commits the offence.
A person who dishonestly uses without due authority, or dishonestly causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity, shall be guilty of an offence. GAFFNEY diverts the electricity, MARSHALL uses it and O’RIORDAN wastes it, meaning that answers A, B and D are incorrect.
BASTERFIELD (aged 17yrs) commits an offence of theft from a shop (the value of the goods stolen is £80) and is detained in the shop by McELROY (the shop owner). PC KHOSA is sent to deal with the incident and is told what has happened by McELROY in the presence of BASTERFIELD. PC KHOSA is also shown CCTV evidence by McELROY clearly showing BASTERFIELD committing the offence; BASTERFIELD stays silent during this time. PC KHOSA is considering dealing with the incident by issuing BASTERFIELD with a Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND).
Can BASTERFIELD be issued with a PND in these circumstances?
A. No, as BASTERFIELD is 17 years old.
B. Yes, as long as the victim (McELROY) agrees with the method of disposal.
C. No, because BASTERFIELD has not admitted the offence.
D. Yes, and BASTERFIELD will have 28 days to pay the penalty.
A Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) allows perpetrators aged 18 or over to pay a fine without going to court (correct answer A, making answers B and D incorrect). Whether McELROY agrees with the method of disposal would not impact on the ability of PC KHOSA to issue a PND (answer B is further incorrect). A person given a PND has 21 days to either pay the penalty or request a court hearing (answer D is further incorrect). A person does not have to admit guilt in order to be given a PND nor is payment of the penalty is not an admission of guilt (answer C is incorrect).
“The offence of aggravated burglary is defined by s. 10 of the Theft Act 1968. The offence is committed when a person commits any burglary and at the time of the burglary has with them certain items.
In relation to those items, which of the following comments is correct?”
“A. The term ‘explosive’ includes fireworks.
B. Only a weapon made for causing injury will be a ‘weapon of offence’.
C. A ‘firearm’ would include an air weapon.
D. Imitation firearms are excluded from the definition.”
“An ‘explosive’ is any article manufactured for the purpose of producing a practical effect by explosion or intended for that purpose but does not include fireworks, making answer A incorrect. A ‘weapon of offence’ is anything made, adapted or intended for causing injury or incapacitation, making answer B incorrect. Imitation firearms are included in the definition, making answer D incorrect. The term ‘firearm’ includes air weapons (correct answer C).
PAGETT and his fiancée (YORK) are in a jewellery shop looking at engagement rings. YORK likes one ring in particular but as it is priced at £2000.00 it is out of PAGETT’s price range. While YORK is looking at other jewellery, PAGETT approaches the owner of the shop and says ‘Tell my fiancée she’s the winner of a surprise customer competition and she’s won that ring because if you don’t, I’ll find out where you live, burn your house down and then kill your family’. PAGETT does not do this for his benefit - his intention is purely to get the engagement ring for his fiancée.
Does PAGETT’s behaviour amount to an offence of blackmail (contrary to s. 21 of the Theft Act 1968)?
A. No, this is not an offence of blackmail because PAGETT did not threaten the owner of the shop with violence.
B. Yes, this is an offence of blackmail because PAGETT’s makes an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to gain for his fiancée.
C. No, this is not an offence of blackmail because PAGETT does not intend to cause a loss to the owner of the shop.
D. Yes, this is an offence of blackmail but only because of the threat to kill the shop owner’s family (the threat to burn the house down would not be a ‘menace’).
Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 states that a person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces. The word ‘menace’ should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, for example, the person’s actions or words have a threatening quality - threatening to burn a house down and kill people could be nothing other than ‘menaces’ (making answer D incorrect). There is no need for the ‘menaces’ to involve threats of violence (although such threats would clearly be a menace), making answer A incorrect. Although PAGETT did not commit the offence intending to cause loss to the owner of the shop that does not mean the offence has not been committed (incorrect answer C) as the mens rea for the offence is with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another.
LEE commits offences of burglary to fund his drug habit. He approaches a house owned by BRIGHTLING and looking through the kitchen window he sees a purse on the kitchen table. LEE slides his hand between the window and frame in order to release the window catch but although he gets his hand through he cannot get enough purchase on the catch to open the window fully. LEE has a metal coat hanger with him; he breaks it open and slides it through the gap between the window and frame to steal the purse but he cannot reach the purse. LEE then produces a crowbar and prises open the kitchen door to get into the kitchen. As the door breaks off its hinges BRIGHTLING walks into the kitchen and shouts in alarm; LEE runs away.
Considering the element of ‘entry’ within the offence of burglary (under s. 9 of the Theft Act 1968), which of the below statements is correct?
A. As LEE did not get his entire body into the building at any point, ‘entry’ has not been gained.
B. LEE ‘enters’ when he slides his hand between a window and frame in the kitchen in order to release the window catch.
C. LEE ‘enters’ when he pushes a coat hanger through the window to steal the purse.
D. LEE ‘enters’ when he uses a crowbar to gain entry by prising open the front door.
Entry can be gained in a number of ways for example In person, by walking or climbing into a building, either completely or by inserting a body part (e.g. an arm or a leg) through a window or letter box. You do not need to get the entire body into the building to qualify as entry, making answer A incorrect. However, there must be more than minimal insertion; sliding a hand between a window and frame from the outside of a building in order to release the catch would be insufficient, making answer B incorrect. Using a tool or article as an extension of the human body to carry out one of the relevant offences would amount to entry (correct answer C). In these circumstances no part of the body needs to be inserted, only the article that is being used to gain entry. The article must be used for more than just gaining entry; using a crowbar just to prise open a door would not qualify as the full offence (answer D is incorrect) but a length of garden cane pushed through the letter box of a shop to hook a scarf from a display would qualify as the full offence.
Theft, Fraud and Related Offences, para 16.4 to 16.4.1. Entry can be gained in a number of ways for example In person, by walking or climbing into a building, either completely or by inserting a body part (e.g. an arm or a leg) through a window or letter box. You do not need to get the entire body into the building to qualify as entry, making answer A incorrect. However, there must be more than minimal insertion; sliding a hand between a window and frame from the outside of a building in order to release the catch would be insufficient, making answer B incorrect. Using a tool or article as an extension of the human body to carry out one of the relevant offences would amount to entry (correct answer C). In these circumstances no part of the body needs to be inserted, only the article that is being used to gain entry. The article must be used for more than just gaining entry; using a crowbar just to prise open a door would not qualify as the full offence (answer D is incorrect) but a length of garden cane pushed through the letter box of a shop to hook a scarf from a display would qualify as the full offence.
AGNEW and McKENZIE work in the same office. AGNEW loaned McKENZIE £200.00 several weeks ago on the strict understanding that McKENZIE would pay the money back within a week. AGNEW has asked McKENZIE to pay the debt on several occasions but McKENZIE has refused. The last time AGNEW asked McKENZIE for the money, McKENZIE told AGNEW to ‘Get lost’ and that she would never pay the money back. AGNEW believes he has a moral right to recover the money and when McKENZIE leaves her desk, AGNEW takes McKENZIE’s mobile phone (which is worth approximately £200.00) from McKENZIE’s desk as payment for the £200.00 debt.
In relation to ‘dishonesty’ (s. 2(1) of the Theft Act 1968), which of the below statements is correct?
A. AGNEW is not dishonest because he believes he has a moral right to take the mobile phone from McKENZIE’s desk.
B. Whether AGNEW is dishonest or not would have to be decided by reference to the statutory definition of ‘dishonesty’ under s. 2 of the Act.
C. A court would decide if AGNEW is dishonest by asking whether an everyday honest person would consider AGNEW’s act dishonest.
D. If AGNEW took the mobile phone believing he had a lawful right to deprive McKENZIE of the property, he would not be dishonest.
Section 2(1) of the Theft Act 1968 does not actually define dishonesty (making answer B incorrect). Section 2(1) tells you when a person will not be dishonest. The person is not acting dishonestly if he/she believes that:
• he/she had a lawful right to take the item; or
• he/she would have the owner’s consent if the owner had known the circumstances; or
• the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Section 2(1) does not require a court to consider whether the act of the person concerned was dishonest by asking whether an everyday honest person would consider AGNEW’s act dishonest (that is the approach taken by a court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, making answer C incorrect. If a person believes they have a lawful right to deprive the person of the property then they will not be dishonest (correct answer D). Believing you have a moral right has no connection to s.2(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
PC BECCERRA is on uniform patrol and is sent to a camping site where a number of incidents have occurred overnight. The officer is told that all of the incidents have been reported as burglaries. When PC BECCERRA arrives at the camp site she speaks to the owners of the property in question in order to establish what offences have been committed. As it turns out, only one of the incidents reported to the officer is a burglary.
Which one is it?
A. An uninhabited caravan owned by WOOD was broken into and several items of furniture in the caravan were stolen.
B. PEART pitched his tent on the camp site and left it to visit a local pub; when he returned, the tent flap had been ripped open and camping gear that had been stored in the tent had been stolen.
C. An empty Auto-Trail Imala motorhome vehicle that is stored on the campsite was broken into and property belonging to ARGENT (the absent owner) was stolen.
D. MENGA (the campsite owner) tells PC BECCERRA that a garden shed he uses to store gardening equipment in was broken into and a lawnmower was stolen from the shed.
Examples of buildings include garages, bandstands and garden sheds (correct answer D). A dwelling is defined within the Theft Act 1968 as an inhabited building or a vehicle or vessel which is inhabited at the time of the offence (the occupier need not be present at the time of the burglary). An inhabited houseboat at a river bank is regarded as a building for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. Similarly, a motor home or caravan inhabited during a holiday is a building (but not when it is parked and empty during the winter - this rules out answers A and C). A tent would not be included since it is not a semi-permanent structure (ruling out answer B).
HADLEY funds his lifestyle by committing large-scale credit card fraud. He is arrested using a cloned credit card to purchase goods and taken to a designated police station where a search of his home address (which is 12 miles from the designated police station) is authorised. During the search of HADLEY’s home address, police officers find fifty blank credit cards and a card skimming machine. HADLEY’s computer is seized (from the study of his house) and the credit card data of several hundred people is discovered on the computer. When interviewed, HADLEY confesses that he was going to use the blank credit cards, the skimming machine and the data to commit offences of fraud in a few days time.
In relation to the items found in the search of HADLEY’s home, does HADLEY commit an offence of possession of articles to commit fraud (contrary to s. 6 of the Fraud Act 2006)?
A. No, as HADLEY did not have the items with him when they were found.
B. No, as they were all found in HADLEY’s place of abode.
C. Yes, but only in relation to the fifty blank credit cards and the skimming machine.
D. Yes, in relation to the blank credit cards, the skimming machine and the data on his computer.
A person can commit an offence by ‘going equipped’ to carry out a fraud, rather than actually having committed the fraud itself. In this context, going equipped means being in possession or control of articles for use in a fraud (s. 6 of the Fraud Act 2006), not ‘with him/her’ making answer A incorrect. The articles can be anything at all (the blank credit cards and the skimming machine) and also includes a computer program or data held in electronic form - so all of the articles are covered, making C incorrect. For possession, the person must have immediate physical control over the article and know that it is there. Having control would include having physical control at a distance and also knowing that the article was there. Unlike most other statutory preventative measures (legislation designed to prevent criminal offences from taking place, for example ‘going equipped’ to steal), this offence can be committed anywhere, including when the articles are located in the suspect’s home. This makes answer B incorrect. As all the articles are covered, the correct answer is D.
