Theft, robbery, defences

Question 1

Of Property

Answer 1

Includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action (legally enforced e.g. debt, cheque) and other intangible property

Question 2

Real property

Answer 2

Land and anything fixed to land. Land cannot be stolen except by trustee, tenant etc

Question 3

Personal property

Answer 3

Property other than land

Question 4

Ivey Test

Answer 4

a) what was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts? and
b) was their conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

Question 5

Robbery

Answer 5

S.8 Theft Act 1968 ‘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/threat of force on any person’

Question 6

Actus reus and Mens rea of robbery

Answer 6

AR: Steals, Immediately before of at the time of stealing, use of force/threat, on any person, in order to steal. MR: MR of theft

Question 7

Immediately before or at the time of doing so

Answer 7

The offence of theft is complete as soon as the appropriation has taken place. However the courts have treated appropriation as a continuing act

Question 8

AR of attempt

Answer 8

‘more than merely perparatory’ . D has to put himself in a position where there is no chance of escaping. Buying a gun is merely perparatory but pointing it at someones head is more than merely perpatory (difficult to judge however)

Question 9

Non Insane Automatism

Answer 9

Complete defence. Where a person commits a crime in circumstances where their actions can be said to be involuntary. Also applies where D is not conscious of their actions due to external factors

Question 10

Conditions for non-insane automatism

Answer 10

1. Must exist an involuntary action from external source or reflexes
2. Must be complete loss of control
3. Cannot be self-induced

Question 11

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 11

where D has voluntarily put themselves in the position of being intoxicatied to the extent that they are not capable of forming the mental element of a crime. A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.

Question 12

R v Owino

Answer 12

D committed ABH against his wife, convicted and appealed. Appealed on the basis that his force was only unlawful is he intended to use more force than HE BELIEVED was necessary. However the actual force permitted has to be reasonable by objective standards.

Question 13

R v Beckford

Answer 13

Appellant thought man had a firearm, hoest belief. Does not matter that his belief is mistaken. D must be judged against the circumstances he believes them to be

Question 14

Initial Aggressor

Answer 14

Self defence can be used even if D was the initial aggressor. Only allowed where the violence offered back by the victim was so out of proportion to that of the defendant

Question 15

Duress by threat

Answer 15

When a victim is told to commit an offence and is subject to ‘threats of immediate death or serious violence’ . It is for the jury to decide whether the threat was sufficient to warrant duress

Question 16

Graham Test

Answer 16

Test for duress. 1. Was D compelled to act as he did because he feared deat/serious injury? (subj). 2. Would a person of reasonable firmness with the same characteristics as D would also have believed this? (obj)

Question 17

Hassan

Answer 17

D was associated with S, a man known to be a violent drug dealer, he was thus compelled into burglarly. D is not entitled to rely on duress as he was voluntarily associated with known criminals - ought to have foreseen the risk. (also not applicable if S was non-violent)

Question 18

Relevant characteristics

Answer 18

The reasonable person is of average fortitude, i..e. strength and firmness of mind. Low IQ does not count. Age, sex and physical health may be relevant characteristics. Timidness, self imposed abuse does not count

Question 19

Immediacy

Answer 19

Threat must be imminenet in the sense that is is operating upon the accused at the time when the crime was committed. Could the person subject of duress have reasonable extracted themself from the situation

Question 20

Theft Act 1968 definition

Answer 20

Dishonest appropration of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive them

Question 21

AR and MR of theft

Answer 21

AR: Appropriation, Of property, Belonging to another
MR: Dishonest, Intention

Question 22

Appropriation

Answer 22

Includes any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner. There is no requirement that all rights of an owner are assumed, one is sufficient.

Question 23

R v Morris

Answer 23

D switched labels in a supermarket, Morris payed a lower sum than needed. Need not be an assumption of all rights of an owner

Question 24

Oxford v Moss

Answer 24

D took an exam paper with the intention of returning the paper having used the info to cheat. Confidential info does not amount to intangible property

Question 25

Belonging to another

Answer 25

Property will be regarded as belonging to any other person having possession or control over it. Meaning a person can be liable for theft of their own property if it is deemed in the possesion of another

Question 26

R v Turner

Answer 26

D took his car to a service station for repaires. When he went to pick it up he saw that the car was left outside witht he key in. He took the car without paying. Car was regarded as belonging to the station

Question 27

Obligation to deal with something in a certain way

Answer 27

Where a person recieves property from or an account of another persdon and is under an obligation to deal with it in a certain way the property shall be regarded as belonging to the other person

Question 28

Davidge v Bennett

Answer 28

D received checks form her flat mates which were to pay for the communal gas bill. D instead spent money on xmas presents and didnt pay the bill .Liable for theft, cheques had been given with an obligation ot deal with it in a certain way

Question 29

Receving property by mistake

Answer 29

Where a person receives property by mistake they are under an obligation to return the property, a failure to do so will amount ot theft

Question 30

A-G Ref

Answer 30

D received an overpayment in her wages by mistake. She had noticed she had received more than she was entitled to but did not say anything nor withdraw it. It is possible for theft where D had not withdrawn/used it

Question 31

Abandoned property

Answer 31

Is still regarded as belonging to the loser. However where an owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps, the finder of the property has better title to the items than the owner of land on which the items were found

Question 32

Exceptions to lost property/when can it not be claimed?

Answer 32

If they are a trespasser or if items were found under the surface of occupied land

Question 33

R v small

Answer 33

Appellant took a car which he believed had been abandoned. It had been left in the same place for 2 weeks with the keys in the ignition. He believed the owner could not be found and took reasonable steps. There is no requirement that the defendants belief is reasonable as it judged subjectively

Question 34

Dishonesty

Answer 34

Instances of when a person is not to be regarded as dishonesT:
believes in law he has a right to the property
believes the owner would consent to the appropriation if they knew of it and its circumstances
believes the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

Question 35

Who decides if D was dishonest?

Answer 35

Jury

Question 36

Intention to permanently deprive

Answer 36

Is satisfied if the person treats the property as its own regardless of the owners rights.

Question 37

R v Lavender

Answer 37

D had removed doors from a council property that was due for dmeolition. He installed the doors in his girlfriends flat. Treated the doors as his own

Question 38

Steals

Answer 38

Element of the actus reus of robbery requiring all elements of theft to be satisfied

Question 39

R v Hale

Answer 39

2 defendants broke into a womens home. AFTER appropriating the jewellery they tied her up. They appelaed syaing the force came after the stealing. Held that the act of appropriation did not cease. It is treated as continuous act and up to the jury to decide

Question 40

How much force can be used for robbery?

Answer 40

Up to the jury to decide, no requirement that it is direcvly applied

Question 41

Dawson and James

Answer 41

Defendant nudged a man to make it easier for the second defendant to take his wallet. Jury were entitled to find that force had been used.

Question 42

Clouden

Answer 42

D used a wrench to take a shopipng bag out of a womans grasp. He did not physically touch her. Held that the force used on the bag was sufficient to the amount of force on a person

Question 43

In order to steal

Answer 43

Means that if an individual uses violence at the time of stealing, but this violence is not used in order to steal the article, then this would not be robbery.

Question 44

Attempt (S1 Criminal attempts act 1981)

Answer 44

Where a person tries to commit an offence, but, for some reason, fails to complete the act (AR). Does not apply to omissions. Only relates to crimes of specific intent (murder, gbh, s18, theft, robbery, burglary)

Question 45

Mr of attempt

Answer 45

Intention. Recklessness is insufficient but there are some exceptions! Case Example - Recklessness : Easom 1971 Defendant picked up woman’s bag but didn’t touch anything and put it back. There was no conviction as he didn’t intend to steal/permanently deprive anything

Question 46

Jones

Answer 46

D brought a gun,. found the victim in his car. went in car and pointed it to his head. All acts were merely perparatory unti lhe actually got in the car.

Question 47

Insanity

Answer 47

General defence available to all crimes. Jury are directed to give a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Usually results in lifetime incarceration

Question 48

Insanity is relevant at three points

Answer 48

Insanity before trial. Unfitness to pead. Insanity at the time of the offence

Question 49

Insanity before trial

Answer 49

Obviously insane. Home secretary has power to detain him immediately in a mental hospital. Confirmation is required by 2 doctors

Question 50

Unfitness to plead

Answer 50

Special jury is empanelled to decide if the defendant is unfit to plead, and then another jury decides if they have committed the AR of the offence. If they have then they are incarcerated in a mental hospital

Question 51

Mnaghten 1843

Answer 51

D attempted to kill the prime minister but instead shot his secretary. Suffering from insane delusions at the time of killing

Question 52

Mnaghten rules

Answer 52

At the time of the defence, the defendant was suffering from: 1. a defect of reason (mere forgetfulness is not enough) 2. The defect of reason must be caused by a disease of the mind. 3. Defect of reason must be such that D did not know what he was doing, or did not know it was wrong.

Question 53

Codere

Answer 53

Appellant was convicted of murder. He sought to rely on the defence of insanity, however at the time knew it was unlawful to kill.

Question 54

Whoolley

Answer 54

D was a lorry driver, who suffered a sneezing fit, losing control of his vehicle and knocked into cars. Acted as an involuntary action

Question 55

Intoxication

Answer 55

May be a defence. Where a person is intoxicatwed and commits a crime. the level of intoxication may be sucha s to prevent the defendant forming the necessary M,R

Question 56

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 56

Usually where a person has had their food or drink spiked without their knowledge. Can cover where a drug has had an unexpected result

Question 57

Self defence

Answer 57

Is a complete defence. A person may use reasonable force either to defend himself or another from attack, or to protect property. Aditionally a person may use reasonable force to prevent crime or assist arrest

Question 58

Force (self defence)

Answer 58

A person may use force as is (ob) reasonable in the circumstances he believes them to be (subj).
The necessity to use force must be judged on the facts D believes them to be

Question 59

Pre-emptive strike

Answer 59

It is possible for the defendant to make a pre emptive strik,e to defend himself as seen in beckfrod when he feared for his life

Question 60

Martin

Answer 60

D shot and killed an intruder who had broken into his property. Not self defence as it was held unreasonable force to use a shotgun against unarmed teens

Question 61

Duress

Answer 61

Forced to do something against your will. Complete defence absoluted D of all crim liability. Cannot be used for murder or attempted murder. 2 types.

Question 62

Cole

Answer 62

Apellant borrowed some money from a loan shark. Shark threatened him and his girlfriend with serious violence unless he repaid. Thus robbed several buildings to pay him back. Duress unsuccessful as the shark did not tell him to commit a crime