theft, robbery, & burglary - notes

Theft

Definition: The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive

Actus Reus:

  • Appropriation - s3 Theft Act 1968

Assumption of the rights of the owner

~ R v Morris - The assumption of a right of the owner as opposed to the full rights is sufficient

~ Consent - R v Gomez - there could be an appropriation of property even where the owner consents if that consent is obtained through deception

~ Gifts - R v Hinks - even though it was a valid gift it amounted to an appropriation because D took advantage of his low IQ & naive nature

  • Property - s4 Theft Act 1968

Money, real or personal property, things in action, other intangible property

(3) includes wild plants if taken for reward or sale

~ Bodily fluids - R v Welsh - D poured a urine sample that was supposed to be given to police down the drain

Held: bodily fluids are property that is capable of being stolen

~ Information - Oxford v Moss - confidential information itself is not property - but if the physical papers were stolen it would (find case)

~ Thing in action - a right that can be legally enforced

R v Kohn - part of his job as an accountant was to write cheques for the company to pay off its debts, he wrote checks to pay off his own debts

Held: money in a bank is a thing in action capable of being stolen

  • Belonging to another - s5 Theft Act 1968

Possession, control, proprietary interest

~ R v Turner - took his car from a garage after it had been repaired without paying

Held: the car was under possession & control of the garage so D had stolen it

~ Abandoned property - R v Woodman - left some scrap metal behind when moving it & fenced the site off & D took some

Held: property belonged to the victim as it was in his possession & control

~ Property given for a specific purpose - R v Wain - money from a charity was put into D’s bank account with consent from the charity, he was unable to account for 2,800

Held: he had an obligation to pay his sum of money to the charity since it belonged to another

Mens Rea:

  • Dishonesty - R v Ghosh

The test for establishing whether D was dishonest:

  1. Was D’s conduct dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable & honest people

  2. Did D realise that reasonable & honest people regard his conduct as dishonest

Ivey v Genting Casinos (supreme court) - the second part of the test is not required since it does not correctly represent the law

  • Intent to permanently deprive - s6 Theft Act

When they treat the property as their own to dispose of regardless of the owners rights, even when they don’t mean for the other person to permanently lose it

~ R v Raphael - D took V’s car by force & demanded payment for its return

Held: in placing a condition on the return of the car he was treating it as his own to dispose of regardless of the owners rights

~ Borrowing

R v Velumyl - borrowed money from the company safe with the intention of returning it after the weekend

Held: he had intent to permanently deprive the company of the specific money that was taken since he wouldn’t have been able to replace the exact notes

R v Lloyd - took films from a cinema to make copies & returned them after a few hours

Held: the value of the films had not been diminished & could still be used - no intent to permanently deprive since he returned the exact thing stolen

  • Evaluation

~

Robbery

s8 Theft Act 1968 - Definition: D steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, & in order to do so, uses force on any person or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subject to force

The prosecution must establish all the elements of theft being present for there to have been a robbery

Actus Reus:

  • Theft

~ R v Robinson - D was not dishonest as he believed he was entitled to the money he stole

Held: conviction was not upheld as all the elements of theft could not been established

  • Force or threat of the use of force

~ Force

R v Dawson & James - for the jury to decide whether force was used

Held: the force didn’t necessarily have to be applied to a person

RP & Others - no direct physical contact, so there was theft, not robbery

R v Clouden - directing force at the victim & her property was sufficient for robbery (force aimed solely against property would be insufficient)

~ Fear of force

The test for fear is based more on the intention of the perpetrator than any actual fear felt by the victim - B & R v DPP

Held: robbery does not require proof V was actually put in fear, its enough that D seeks to cause V to apprehend violence

  • Immediately, before, or at the time of theft

~ Continuing act - R v Hale - one defendant can apply the force while the other commits the theft, the theft can be seen as a continuing act - even though it was impossible to say whether the theft occurred at the same time as the force the theft was a continuing act = robbery

  • On any person

~ R v Clouden - the theft does not have to arise from the actual threats to the person

  • In order to steal

~ R v James - the force was not used in order to steal because he took the opportunity to commit theft while hitting V

Mens Rea:

Mens Rea of theft - dishonesty & intent to permanently deprive

Intention to threaten or use force:

  1. Aims or desires to threaten or use force - R v Mohan

  2. The threat or use of force is virtually certain & D realises it - R v Cunningham

~ R v Robinson - D was not dishonest as he believed he was entitled to the money he stole

Sentencing - indictable offence with a max sentence of life imprisonment

  • Evaluation

~ the degree of force needed to turn theft into robbery is slight, yet the difference in punishment ranges from a maximum of 7years - life

~ it would save time & money if there was a lesser charge where the force used is slight (tried in magistrates) & a greater charge where the force used is greater (tried in crown), instead of just one offence

~ not much of a deterrent associated with robbery since the rate of conviction is low & most defendants under 18 receive community service

Burglary

s9 Theft Act 1968

(1)(a) - D enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, GBH, or unlawful damage

(1)(b) - D enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser & commits theft or GBH

Actus Reus:

  • Entry

Not defined in statute & has evolved through interpretation

~ R v Brown - only the top half of his body was inside the window

Held: entry was sufficient because D was in a position to steal

  • Building or part of a building

~ Building - Stevens v Gourley:

A building is a structure with a degree of permanence designed to endure for some time

s9(4) inhabited vehicles or vessels count as a prohibited area

~ Part of a building - R v Walkington - went behind the counter of a store & opened the till

Held: wasn’t a part of the building he was entitled to enter

  • Trespass

Enters another persons building with no permission/exceeds permission or legal right to be there & does so intentionally or recklessly

~ R v Jones & Smith - V gave his son general permission to enter the house, D then stole from it

Held: exceeded his permission by entering the house for the purpose of stealing

~ Consent - R v Collins - must be shown that D was aware he was trespassing or that he was subjectively reckless in doing so

Mens Rea:

  1. D must know they are a trespasser or be subjectively reckless in doing so

  2. Intention to commit one of the ulterior offences (theft, GBH)