Property Offences

s.8 Theft Act

Robbery

Robbery

Three Elements:

• Theft

• Force/Threat of force

• Immediately before or during theft, in order to steal.

Robinson

Facts:

• The defendant honestly believed he had a legal right to the property

Held:

• D could not be guilty of robbery, lacked MR of theft.

Corcoran v Anderson

Facts:

• D tugged at the victim’s handbag, causing it to fall to the ground

Held:

• Defendant’s actions had amounted to an appropriation

• If it has not fallen to the ground, it would be sufficient that the defendant exerted an amount of control sufficient to amount to an appropriation.

P v DPP

Facts:

• D snatched a lit cigarette, causing it to fall to the ground

  Held:

• The force exerted by the defendant was too ‘negligible’ for robbery.

R v Cloudan

Facts: The defendant snatched the victim’s bag, but there was no contact. Held: This was sufficient to satisfy the conditions for robbery.

Smith v Desmond

The force need not be exerted against the victim of the theft to satisfy robbery.

Hale

Facts: The defendant ties up the victim, while another person stole items from him. Held: The violence was part of a ‘continuing act’, there must be intention that the force is linked with or facilitating theft. Force must be in relation to a person.

Section 9 Theft Act

Burglary

Section 9(1)(a) Theft Act

AR: Entry of a building as a trespasser

MR: Intent or recklessness as to entry as a trespasser

Intent to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage

s9(1)(b) Theft Act

AR: Entry of a building as a trespasser

AR: AR for theft, or GBH or attempted theft or GBH

MR: Intent to commit GBH or Theft

R v Brown

Court found that there must be an ‘effective’ entry, does not matter how substantial, just needs to be effective. Standing on pavement and reaching through window was enough.

R v Ryan

Defendant got trapped inside a window, needed to be removed by the fire brigade. Found guilty of burglary - entry was effective.

R v Horncastle

Facts: The defendant used a bamboo stick to hook car keys through the door. Held: This was an effective entry

B & S v Leathely

Facts: Freezer container was detached and is thus a ‘building’ for the purposes of section 9

Norfolk Constabulry v Seekings and Gould

• Freezer container attached to chassis was not a building, essentially an uninhabited vehicle.

‘Building’ (section 9)

• Section contains no specific guidance other than that an inhabited vehicle can be considered a ‘building’

R v Walkington

Facts: The defendant went behind the moveable counter area in a store and stole money. Held: The counter was a physical demarcation, whether it was sufficiently secluded was a question for the jury.

The defendant’s entered the victim’s house and stole TVs. At trial, the defendant’s claimed they had unreserved permission to enter. They were convicted of robbery. Held (on appeal): Persons may still be a trespasser, if they enter knowing that they were acting in excess of the permission granted (or reckless as to acting in excess of permission).

R v Collins

The defendant was in the habit of sleeping naked, at 3:40AM saw the defendant at her window, with a fully erect penis. She mistook him for her boyfriend.

Davis LJ said that to be a trespasser under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 a person mustenter either knowing that he is trespassing, or acting recklessly as to whether he is a trespasser or not. For the purposes of criminal liability an accused should be judged on the facts as he believed them to be and this should include mistake as to his liabilities under civil law

Theft

Section 1 of the Theft Act

Definition of Theft

• Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another, with the intention to permanently deprive them of their property

Theft Act Section 3

Appropriation is an assumption of the rights of the owner (this includes, where he has come by the property without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping it or dealing with it as owner)

R v Morris

• Defendant changed the sticker price on an item in a shop

• This was enough to amount to an appropriation - only the owner could change the price of the item.

• Appropriation involves ‘adverse interference’ (Since disapplied)

DPP v Gomez

• The defendant convinced manager to accept a payment, which he knew was fraudulent

• The manager had consented to the sale - was it theft?

Held:

• Lawrence and Morris are not reconcilable

• House of Lords followed Lawrence, absence of consent is not a requirement for theft.

Lawrence v MPC

• Defendant was a taxi driver, picked up an Italian student who did not speak much English. Journey should have been 50p, student gave driver his wallet and he took 5 pounds.

• Held: Absence of consent was not necessary requirement for an appropriation to take place

R v Mazo (Disapplied)

• Maid was convicted of theft of cheques stolen from her manager

• D’s case was that the money was given to her as a series of gifts

• Prosecution argued that she had taken advantage of employer, who had short term memory loss

• Appeal: Conviction quashed, receiver of a valid gift could not be convicted of theft

R v Hinks

• D befriended a man who was of limited intelligence, tricked him into giving him 60k, which was almost all of his money

• Held: a gift could be appropriated and thus could be subject to a charge of theft.

• The validity of the gift was not a question for the jury, valid gift can be an appropriation

Bona Fide Purchaser Exception

3. 'Appropriates'

- 2) Where a property right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights he believed himself to be acquiring shall by reason of any defect in tittle, amount to theft

- 3(2) Provides an exception where property transfers to a bona fide purchaser, for value without notice of any defects in title

Property

Theft Act s4(1)

- Property includes money and all other property, real or personal including things in action and other intangible property

- Four elements to note here:

- Real property (land)

- Personal property (not land)

- Things in action (right to sue for value)

- Intangible property (securities/financial rights)

Land Exceptions

• Real property refers to land

• General principle: Land taken without being ‘severed', is excluded from the criminal law of theft (it would be a civil wrong instead) e.g. moving a boundary fence into neighboring land

• s4(2) contains exceptions to this principle

• If D is a trustee and appropriates land through a breach of trust, that land will count as property

• Land that is severed in included (taking soil, plants, ect)

• For tenants, fixtures or structures are included (sinks, sheds) without being severed

Mushrooms and Flowers

Although property in civil law, all wild fungi, plants and trees (flowers fruit or foliage) are excluded from 'property' under the Theft Act s4(3)

Exceptions to exclusion of Mushrooms and Flowers

Taken for reward or commercial sale

- The fungi/plants are not wild but cultivated

- D takes the whole plant

Wild creatures s

Wild creatures are not property

- Tamed or domesticated creatures are property

- Wild creatures that have been killed (hunted) or trapped become property

- 'Reduced into possession'

Cresswell v DPP

Feeding wild badgers did not reduce them to property

Oxford v Moss

• Reading exam paper without permission was not theft

Services

• Failure to pay for a service is not theft

R v Kelly & Lindsay

• Defendant stole body parts to be used to make casts, convicted of theft

Held: Body parts had been transformed through their preservation

Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust

“the easiest course would be for us to uphold the claims of the men to have had ownership of the sperm for present purposes by reference to the principle identified in the Doodeward case 6 CLR 406. We would have no difficulty in concluding that the unit’s storage of the sperm in liquid nitrogen at minus 196 was an application to the sperm of work and skill which conferred on it a substantially different attribute, namely the arrest of its swift perishability.”

Belonging to another

'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having any proprietary right'

- Thus two ways to 'belonging to another'

R v Rastron

• Defendants went diving for golf balls that had been hit out of bounds

• No intent by the club to rescue the balls but this did not matter

Held:

• Balls belonged to the club, thus D’s appropriation was theft

R v Meredith

• Car was in a police compound, police did not have the right to take it there in the first place

• D was not guilty of stealing the car

R v Woodman

Took scrap metal from a secured area. Held: fence clearly indicated intent to keep people out, indicating possession or control of the scrap metal.

R (Rickets) v Basildon MC:

Took items from outside a charity shop, argued the property had been abandoned. Held: Goods held outside where clearly intended for the shop to have.

R v Marshall:

Collected train tickets that stated ownership remained with company. Sold them at discount. Held: This was theft.

Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher

Treasure hunting - property belonged to the local council, on whose property it was found.

Specific Purpose

• s5(3) providing D is under legal duty to use it in that way

R v Gresham

• Received dead mother’s pension by mistake

• Where D attains property as a result of a mistake, it is not his

Abandonment

• Hard to show, must be complete disregard as to future appropriations

Williams v Philips

• Throwing things in the bin amounted to abandonment

R v Rickets v Basildon

• property left outside a charity shop

Dishonesty

'Dishonesty'

- 1) A persons appropriation of property is not dishonest if he (a) appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a third person (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of him (c) (except where the property came to him as a trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

Honest Belief Defences

A legal right not a moral one

- Does not matter if there is a mistake in law, providing the belief is honest

R v Small

• Car park left for ten days, defendant honestly thought it was abandoned

• Held: No intention to permanently deprive the owner

R v Feely:

Took cash from a till at work, having been unpaid for some time. Left a note explaining his actions. Held: Jury decides dishonesty on 'common standards of ordinary decent people'

Ivey v Genting

Used to overrule the rule in Gosh. The defendant was a professional gambler, used a special card playing technique called edge sorting, to track the cards in a dealers deck at a casino. Using this technique he won 7 Million pounds. Case was a civil action for his winnings. Ivey argued that he was not dishonest. Main focus in this case was on the meaning of cheatings. Supreme Court reflected generally on the meaning of dishonesty. Obiter test: (1) Jury assesses D's subjective knowledge and belief (2) Then jury's assess whether D's conduct was objectively dishonest

R v Barton

• Confirmed that the Ivey test is binding in criminal cases

R v Hayes

Manipulated investment rates, said it wasn't dishonest as it was a wide practice in the industry at that time. This argument was not accepted - his belief that it was an accepted practice does not stop it from being dishonest.

- Dishonest by standards of ordinary decent people

- But is dishonesty consistently understood

- Reasonableness is an evidential factor in dishonesty

- The more unreasonable a belief the less likely it is honestly believed

**Intention to Permanently Deprive

Theft Act s6(1)

- A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other to lose the thing itself nevertheless regarded of having intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights

R v Raphael:

The defendant stole a car and intended to sell it back to the victim. Intended to hold it as is own, therefore intended to permanently deprive the victim.

- What if the property is replaced with something identical

R v Velumyl:

'Borrowing money from the company safe' while intending to replace it. Held: Defendant had no intention of returning the object that was taking, merely similar objects of equal value.

- What if D only removes partial value from the property

**R v Loyd

Defendant was a cinema projectionist and borrowed films to make copies. Held: Intention was to temporarily deprive the owners of the films and that was not sufficient for theft or conspiracy to steal.

Section 10 Theft Act

• A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if she or he commits any burglary and at the time, has any firearm, imitation firearm, any weapon of offence or any explosive

Weapon of offence

(1) Made, adapted or intended for causing injury to, or incapacitating a person

Must have the weapon at the time of the burglary

Criminal Damage Act s1

• Person is guilty of CD is they destroy or damage property belonging to another (with intent or recklessness) as to the destruction or damage, without a lawful excuse

Drake v DPP

• Wheel clamping was not criminal damage, clamp could easily be removed

R v Fiak

• Defendants stuffed blankets down a toilet

• Temporary interference, nonetheless did damage

• Usefulness impacted, i.e. blankets could not be used until cleaned, cell could not be used until repaired

AR Property (Criminal Damage)

• Includes land

• Does not include intangible property

• Does not include wild mushrooms or flowers, even with commercial intent

Belonging to another (CDA)

2) Property shall be treated as belonging to any person

A) having the custody or control of it

(B) Having in it any proprietary interest or right

C) Having a charge on it

Intent/Recklessness CDA

Requires two elements:

1) Intent/recklessness as to causing criminal damage or destruction and

2) Intent or recklessness as to the property belonging to another

R v Smith

• Defendant removed his ‘own’ wiring, in a rented property. Convicted of criminal damage at trial - quashed on appeal.

Held:

• Mistaken belief that the panels belonged to him was a valid defence to the MR of criminal damage

CD Endangering Life

• A person who without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property, whether belonging to himself or another

• (A) Intending to destroy or damage property, or being reckless as to whether it would be damaged or destroyed

• B) Intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another, or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered

R v Steer

Defendant fired shots of a rifle at the windows of former business partner's house. No shots were aimed at the victims, convicted under s1(2). Appealed, and appeal was allowed - he had shot not at the people, but at the house. It is the destruction of the property itself that needs to endanger life - damage in this instance is small.

Arson

• CDA

• An offence is committed under this section by damaging or destroying property by fire

• MR: Intent or recklessness as to causing the fire

CDA s5(2)

• Honestly held, belief in consent

• This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above and any offence under section 2 or 3 above other than one involving a threat by the person charged to destroy or damage property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of another or involving an intent by the person charged to use or cause or permit the use of something in his custody or under his control so to destroy or damage property.

R v Denton:

Did the damage in the belief that his boss wanted him to do it. Boss wanted him to do it because he wanted to make an insurance claim. Trial judge considered that lawful excuse not possible due to the fraud. On Appeal: Criminal intent of the boss did not make the employee's actions a crime.

R v Hill

Cut through the fence if a military base - cited lawful excuse that she did this for the protection of her property. Argued that the base meant that there could be an attack from the soviet union that would destroy her home. Actions justified to protest against it's existence. Objective test for Protection: Judge decided that the damage was far too remote from her aim, danger of attack was not immediate enough

Hardman v CSS Avon and Somerset Constabulary

• Street chalk art was criminal damage, as it needed to be power washed to be removed

Blake v DPP

• Held:

• Honest Belief that god was the owner, and would have consented to destruction is insufficient for the defense of consent

Jaggard v Dickson

Defendant had permission from X to use her house as if it were her own. While coming home intoxicated, mistook V’s house as X’s house and broke the window after failing to enter. Held: D had an honest belief in consent.

AG’s Reference (No 1 of 2022)

• Colston four were charged with CD after toppling statue

• Actions were part of a protest

• Court of Appeal held that there was no broad principle for any offense arising from peaceful protest involved a restriction of rights under 9,10, or 11 of the ECHR, such that the prosecution had to prove that the prosecution would be justified and proportionate

• Prosecution and conviction for causing significant damage to property, during a protest would fall outside the protection of the ECHR, either because the conduct in question was violent or not peaceful, or because the prosecution would be proportionate

• Case led to the Criminal Damage to a Memorial - Part 2 of the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 s50