scenario question theft

Scenario:

Jordon is walking home from work, after a partially hard day. As he is walking, he sees Sam, who borrowed money from him and has not yet given it back. Jordon approaches Sam and he demands Sam’s wallet, saying, “give it to me or I’ll hurt you.” When Sam hesitates, Jordon picks up a discarded glass bottle and smashes it, before waving it around threateningly at Sam. Terrified that Jordon would do something, Sam hands over his wallet.

Later that evening, Jordon enters a convenience store through an unlocked back door. He intends to steal money from the till to make up for the money he had lost earlier that week. Whilst inside, he takes a box of chocolates and puts it in his bag. As he approaches the till, the shop assistant, Mia, confronts him. Jordon pushes Mia to the ground, grabs £200 from the till, and runs out the store. On his way out he notices an open storeroom and takes several cans of alcohol before leaving.

Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive. In order for Jordon to be liable of theft both the actus reus, (appropriation of property belonging to another) and Mens Rea (dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive) need to be present at the same time.

Actus Reus

The definition of appropriation is stated in s3 of the Theft Act 1968, the assumption of the rights of the owner, this is shown in the case of R v Morris. Jordon has assumed he has the right to Sam’s wallet, the box of chocolates, the money, and the alcohol by taking them. Secondly, he must’ve appropriated property, which is money, real or personal property, things in action, and other intangible property, as stated in s4 of the Theft Act 1968 and is shown in the case R v Kohn. The chocolates, Sam’s wallet, and the alcohol are real and personal property, and money is already defined in the statute, therefore Jordon has stolen property. Lastly, the property appropriated must belong to another, under s5 of the Theft Act 1968 this is defined as someone having possession, control, or proprietary interest in the property. Sam had possession of his wallet even though Jordon believed he had a right to the property, as shown in R v Turner. The store had control over the chocolates and the money. Even though the alcohol was abandoned the original owners would still have possession and control, as shown in R v Woodman.

Mens Rea

The test for establishing whether the defendant was dishonest is established in R v Ghosh; was the defendants conduct dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. Since Jordon threatens Sam, enters the convenience store and takes the chocolates and money, and takes the alcohol without consideration of the owners the reasonable person would likely regard his conduct as dishonest. However, since he believed he was entitled to the wallet that was stolen he may not have been dishonest, as shown in R v Robinson. The intent to permanently deprive is defined as, 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 in s6 of the Theft Act 1968. This is shown in the case R v Raphael. Jordon has treated the property he has stolen as his own to dispose of and it’s clear by his actions he does not intend to return these items.

Robbery

For Jordon to be liable of robbery he must have used force or the threat of force with intent immediately, before or at the time of the theft on any person in order to steal and all the elements of theft must be present. This is stated in s8 of the Theft Act 1968.

Jordon used the threat of force to obtain Sam’s wallet, R v Dawson & James. The test for whether the victim feared the force is based more on the intention of the perpetrator than any actual fear, as shown in B & R v DPP. The threat of force was used immediately at the time of the theft. Jordon also used physical force when he pushes Mia, since he has done this in order to steal the items, as shown in R v James. For Jordon to have intent to threaten or use force he must have; aimed or desired to use it, as shown in R v Mohan, and the threat or use must be virtually certain and he must realise this, as shown in R v Cunningham. We can clearly see he intended to use force as he did so in order to get away with the stolen goods.

For Jordon to be liable of burglary he must have either, entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, as stated in s9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, or committed theft in these circumstances, as stated in s9(1)(b).

Firstly, he must have entered the building, as shown in R v Brown. Secondly, he must’ve entered a building or part of a building, as shown in R v Walkington, Jordon entered the store which is a structure with a degree of permanence designed to endure for some time. Jordon has trespassed into the store as he has entered another persons building with no permission to be there and he has done so recklessly, as shown in R v Collins. Jordon was aware and subjectively reckless in entering the building so he has committed trespass. Lastly Jordon must be aware he is a trespasser or have been subjectively reckless in doing so and have the intent to commit theft.

In conclusion, Jordon would be liable for theft, robbery, and burglary under the Theft Act 1968 as all elements have been satisfied.