Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Contained in the Theft Act 1978, which replaced the earlier and much more complicated Theft Act 1968, this is a tri-able either way offence with a maximum sentence of 7 years' imprisonment.

Actus reus: An appropriation of property belonging to another.

Mens rea: Dishonesty, and the intention to permanently deprive.

An appropriation is 'any assumption of the rights of an owner'.

Property is all property both real and personal, and includes money, things in action, and other intangible property.

Property can temporarily belong to someone other than the owner if repairs are being undertaken and payment has not been made. Property given to D to be dealt with in a particular way can result in theft if D treats it as their own property.

Picking wild plants will not be 'property' unless it is done for reward or commercial purpose, or if they are growing on someone else's land. Wild animals will not be regarded as property unless they are tame or kept in captivity.

R v Morris: There is no need to assume all the rights of the owner as long as at least one of their rights is assumed.

Lawrence v MPC: An Italian student who spoke very little English got a taxi from the airport, and when he paid the driver, the driver said that it was not enough. The student was unfamiliar with the currency and held out his wallet to the driver who helped himself to twelve times the amount of the fare. This was theft as, although the student had consented to the appropriation, he was not fully aware of what he was consenting to.

Oxford v Moss: A university student stole an exam paper, intending to return it once he had read it and used the information he obtained to cheat on his exam. He was found guilty but on appeal this was quashed as the information contained on the paper was not property of the university (the paper was, but he planned to return it).

R v Turner: D had taken his car to a garage to be repaired. When the repairs were completed, he saw his car parked outside the garage and drove off in it without paying for the work. He was liable for the theft of his own car because,as payment had not been made for the repairs, it temporarily didn't belong to him.

Davidge v Burnett: D was guilty of theft when her housemates gave her money on the understanding that she would use it to pay the communal gas bill, but instead she used it to buy Christmas presents and then left the flat without giving notice.

Attorney General's Reference (No.1 of 1983): D's salary was paid into her bank account and she was mistakenly overpaid. She was acquitted of theft, but this would have been theft if she had dishonestly refused to return the money.

R v Lloyd: Borrowing will be considered theft if the property is kept until it has little or no value left.

R v Velumyl: Intention to return similar property is still theft.

R v Easom: Conditional intent is not sufficient to prove theft; something must actually be stolen.

Dishonesty is to act without honesty.

There are three exceptions to dishonesty, for all of which D must prove an 'honest belief':

• Appropriating property in the belief that they have a right in law to deprive the owner of it.
• Appropriating property in the belief that they would have the owner's consent if they knew of the circumstances.
• Appropriating property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

The Ghosh Test set out in R v Ghosh is the test for dishonesty:

• Has D been dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people?
• Did D realise they had been dishonest by those standards?

Contained in S8 Theft Act 1968, this is an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Actus reus: Appropriation of property belonging to another, and immediately before the appropriation or at the time of doing so and in order to do so, using force on any person or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

Mens rea: Dishonesty, intention to permanently deprive, and intention or recklessness in using force or threatening force in order to steal.

The theft must be completed for a robbery to have taken place.

The amount of force applied can be small but it must be sufficient to be noticeable. It is not necessary for force to actually be applied. Robbery is committed even if the victim is not actually frightened by D.

The person threatened does not have to be the owner of the property.

R v Dawson & James: One D nudged the victim, causing him to lose his balance and fall over, enabling the other D to take his wallet. This was held to be force.

R v Bentham: Positioning fingers in a coat pocket to make it appear that you have a gun is the threat of force.

B & R v DPP: The victim of a mugging told the court he did not feel particularly threatened or scared at the time but he was a 'bit shocked' by what happened. This was still robbery as the Ds 'sought to put the victim in fear of force'.

R v Hale: Two Ds forced their way into a house and one held the owner while the other went upstairs and took a jewellery box. before leaving they tied the woman up. They argued that the force of tying her up was not 'immediately before or at the time of the theft' because the theft of the jewellery box was already complete, but it was held that the theft was still ongoing at that time.

Contained in the Theft Act 1968, Burglary is a tri-able either way offence, with a maximum sentence of 14 years for burglary of a dwelling and 10 years for a non-dwelling.

There are two ways to commit a burglary ~ S9(1)(a) and S9(1)(b).

Actus reus of S9(1)(a): Entry to a building or part of a building as a trespasser.

Mens rea of S9(1)(a): Intention or recklessness as to the trespass, and intention to commit an ulterior offence.

Actus reus of S9(1)(b): Entry to a building or part of a building as a trespasser, and the appropriation of property belonging to another, or wounding or inflicting GBH.

Mens rea of S9(1)(b): Intention or recklessness as to the trespass, and dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive, or maliciously, intentionally or recklessly causing 'some harm'.

S9(1)(a) requires D to enter a building  or part of a building as a trespasser and intend to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage. S9(1)(b) requires D to have already entered the building or part of the building as a trespasser and afterwards develop the mens rea for the ulterior offence.

D must enter the property, but partial entry is sufficient.

A building is a 'permanent, fixed structure, or a substantial portable structure designed for living in'.

A person who has permission from the owner to be at the property is not a trespasser, however, someone who has permission to enter for a particular purpose will become a trespasser if they enter for some other reason or do something they are not allowed to do.

For S9(1)(a), D is guilty whether they actually commit the offence or not, as long as they entered with the intention of doing so. For S9(1)(b), the ulterior offence must be completed.

R v Ryan: D was found with his head and right arm trapped in the upstairs window of a house ~ he was convicted of burglary because partial entry had occurred.

R v Walkington: D entered a department store during open hours, which was not a trespass. He then went behind a counter where customers did not have permission to go and took money from a till ~ this was held to be 'part of a building', so D was liable.

R v Jones & Smith: Ds went to the house of one of their parents and took a TV set. They had permission to be in the house but had exceeded that permission and became trespassers by taking the TV set.