Flashcards in Theft-Related Offences Deck (28):
Hawes v Edwards
"Receiving" for the offence of handling stolen goods may be satisfied where the goods are located at a place over which D has control with AN INTENT TO POSSESS THE GOODS (this mental element being crucial)
"Receiving" may be constituted by control where the good is in the custody of a servant acting under D’s direction through whom D exercises control over the goods, if D has AUTHORISED OR INSTRUCTED the servant to receive those goods.
If D is to be charged with handling stolen goods by "arranging to receive" the theft must predate the arrangement such that D knows or believes the goods are stolen property at the time of arrangement, otherwise the charge is conspiracy
Merely using the stolen goods does not qualify as "assisting" for purposes of handling stolen goods.
Passive acquiescence is NOT sufficient to constitute "assisting" even if D is benefiting from someone else’s handling
An omission to disclose the presence of stolen goods in the absence of a duty to disclose is NOT sufficient to constitute assisting.
The assistance need not be successful in its object
If D deals with the property on his own solely for his own benefit he does not handle; he must RECEIVE the property
D may be charged with alternative counts of theft and handling if he handles the goods after the initial theft but it cannot be shown he was responsible for the initial theft.
Walters v Lunt
If the only person who could have stolen the good lacks criminal capacity there is no theft and so handling the property cannot be an offence, though it may be an attempt.
D must either be shown to be aware of the theft or believe the goods are stolen
If D is shown to possess property that was recently stolen, this is sufficient evidence to justify a finding that D is either a thief or dishonest receiver where there is no credible explanation as to how D innocently came by the property, with "recent" depending on the circumstances
If D intends to hand it over to the police or true owner immediately he cannot be guilty of handling
D receives a stolen phone innocently from P, who has asked him to safekeep it in return for $10. He then finds out it is stolen, but continues to keep it in hope of earning the $10. What offence has he committed and why?
According to the correspondence principle this is theft. The knowledge/belief that the goods are stolen must coincide with the receiving for the charge to be handling, so it cannot be handling here. The intent to permanently deprive/dishonesty, however, coincides with an act of appropriation so a charge of theft is appropriate.
Without a theft there can be no robbery
How much force is required for robbery?
Dawson – the force need not be substantial
Hale - the force has to be significant in that it modifies V’s movement/freedom of movement
P and others – it was suggested that the degree of force must be one which would potentially be painful if V sought to resist it
Force against property causing force to be applied to the person is sufficient
R v DPP
D need NOT seek to frighten V and V need NOT be frightened
What is the circumstance element of robbery and how is it satisfied?
Force must be used immediately before or after the theft. Gomez and Atakpu suggest once the interference with the property coincides with the mens rea the theft is immediately complete, which may create problems where force is used after this.
Hale suggests appropriation is to be regarded as a continuing act the cessation of which is a matter of fact for the jury.
What is the mens rea of robbery?
D must intend to use force IN ORDER to steal (Bruce)
It appears that any intrusion more than de minimis will suffice for entry in burglary.
Jones v Smith
D is a trespasser if he enters intending to exceed the terms of his license or exceeds the terms of his entry
Robson v Hallett
Authority to enter may be given by any member of the household for lawful purposes but may be revoked or overridden by the occupier
When may D's permission to enter be vitiated for burglary?
Collins – D’s permission may be vitiated by a fundamental mistake of identity
Boyle – D’s permission may be vitiated if obtained by deception or fraud
Stevens v Gourlay
A building is a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least to endure for a considerable time
B and S
The building need not be fixed to the soil (here freezer container with lockable doors, its own electricity supply and intended to remain in situ would suffice)
D may commit burglary by entering as trespasser a "part of the building" where D has permission to enter a building but NOT access the whole interior