Property Offences

Burglary - Theft Act 1968

(Planned) Section 9(1)(a): a person is guilty if they enter any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm (GBH), or do unlawful damage

(Opportunist) Section 9(1)(b): a person is guilty if, having entered as a trespasser, they steal or attempt to steal anything, or inflict or attempt to inflict GBH.

Actus Reus of Burglary

Entry: the defendant must enter a building or part of a building. Entry need not be a whole body, but must be effective.

Building or part of a building: the structure must be considered building or part thereof, including inhabited vehicles or vessels.

as a trespasser: the entry must be unauthorised; the defendant must no have permission or must exceed any permission given.

Mens Rea of Burglary

Section 9(1)(a): the defendant must have intent to commit theft, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage at the time of entry, plus knowledge or recklessness as to trespassing

Section 9(1)(b): the defendant must have the Mens Rea for theft or GBH (depending on the act committed after entering), as well as knowledge or recklessness as to trespassing.

R v Ryan

Even only partial entry such as only a head and right arm are sufficient evidence that the defendant had entered the property.

R v Walkington

despite lawfully being in a building, if the defendant goes into any areas they aren’t allowed in, they are trespassing.

R v Collins

Entry must be ‘substantial and effective’

Robbery

Theft Act 1968 - “A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, 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.”

Actus Reus of Robbery

• Theft: there must be a completed theft as defined above

• Use or threat of force: force must occur immediately before or at the time of the theft.

• purpose: the force or threat must be used in order to steal

Mens Rea of Robbery

• Mens rea of theft: the defendant must have the mens rea for theft (dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive)

• Intent to use force : There must be intention to use force to steal

R v Waters

No theft means no robbery

R v Dawson and James

Any force applied, no matter how minimal, if used in tandem with theft is robbery

P v DPP

Even if theft is present, if no force is used then it cannot be robbery. Pickpocketing is theft not robbery

R v Clouden

No distinction can be drawn between force applied directly to a person and force applied to an object that causes force to be transmitted to the person

R v Lockley

Even if the force is not used directly at the moment of the theft, but is still tied to the theft transaction (fighting off a security guard or shopkeeper to get away) it is robbery.

S.1 Theft Act 1968: Definition

“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.”

S.2 - Dishonesty: R v Barton and Booth

“Would reasonable honest people call the defendants actions dishonest.”

Criminal test for dishonesty (Barton and Booth + Ivey v Genting Casinos

• What was the defendants actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts?

• Was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

Three situations in which theft may be allowed

• Belief that they have a right in law to deprive the other of it. The exception required an honest but not necessarily reasonable belief (R v Holden + R v Robinson)

• Belief that there would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation

• Belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

S.3 - Appropriation

‘Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’

TLDR: appropriation is when you treat property in a way as if it was yours E.g. selling or destroying it. Appropriation is not a continuing act, it occurs at one time.

R v Stalham

a man was awarded a pay rise of $4000 per year, however clerical error caused him to be paid the full amount in a lump sum

R v Atakpu and Abrahams

Defendnats hired BMW’s in Germany using fake driving licenses and passports, then drove them to the UK where they were arrested. Conviction was quashed by CoA as the appropriation had taken place outside of UK jurisdiction, in Germany. Theft happens at one time, not a continuing act.

S.4 - Property

“Property” included money and all other property, real or personal, including things in account and other intangible property.

• Things in action = e.g. bank account funds

• Intangibles = things you cannot touch

S.5 - Belonging to another

prosecution does not need to prove who the legal owner of the property is.

Therefore, the important words are:

• possession and control

• property right or interest

Property will only be abandoned if the owner has no further interest in the property

R v Turner

defendant took his own car from a garage without paying for repairs. since the garage had a lien or legal right to hold the car until payment was made, him taking the car was theft

R v Woodman

Woodman entered a disused and fenced off factory and took scrap metal the old company had left behind. Since the Theft Act of 1968 doesn’t require the owner to be aware of the properties existence for possession to be valid, the defendant was convicted.

R v Klineberg & Marsden

Defendnats operated timeshare apartements, each purchaser paid the purchase price noted understanding that money would be held by an independent trust company until the apartment was ready to purchase. over $500,000 was paid to the defendant but only $233 went to the independent trust account. therefore they were convicted of theft.

S.6 - Intention to permantely deprive

‘If his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights, and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if…. the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.’

Nutshell = intent to treat the thing as their own to dispose of. Or a borrowing or lending for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

Courts said that intention to permanently deprive will occur in borrowing situations where ‘the goodness, the virtue, the practical value’ of the property is lost

S.6 - Borrowing/lending

S.6 also covers situations where borrowing or lending property can be treated as having an intention to permanently deprive.

Borrowing or lending can show an intention to permanently deprive if it is for a period of time long enough, or in circumstances that make it equivalent to outright taking the item.

DPP v Lavender

Defendant was in a building of his girlfriend’s flat when he spotted some doors that were being used to repair another council flat. He took the doors and used them to repair damaged ones in his girlfriend flat. convicted of theft as =

Principle: ‘dispose of’ should mean ‘dealing with.’

R v Velumyl

Manager of a company takes money from the office safe, saying he was going to replace the money later.

CoA upheld conviction of theft as he had intention to permanently deprive the company of money - even if he intended to replace them with other banknotes of the same value later.

R v Hall

Employee took fat that was going to be destroyed, from his employers butcher shop. Court held that this was intention to permanently deprive as he treated the fat as his own to dispose of regardless of owners rights

R v Lloyd

Defendant, a projectionist at a cinema, took a film home and made an illegal copy. He returned the film to the cinema before the next screening.

Conviction of theft was quashed because he returned the film in its original state and undamaged, ‘t