Unit 4a FLASHCARDS NEEDED

Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 = 'The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive'

Actus Reus:

Appropriation: S3 TA 1968

• [Pitman v Hehl] - Assumed rights of ownership
• [Hinks] - Appropriation of a 'gift' 

Property: S4 TA 1968

• Owner has a propriatory right or interest to the object - [R v Kelly & Lindsey]

Belonging to another: S5 TA 1968

• [Webster] - Belonged to the MOD
• [Wain] - Belonged to the charity he was collecting for
• [Turner] - Car was in a state of A-lien, had effectively stolen his own car
• [Woodman] - Can still belong to victim even if they dont know about it

Mens Rea:

Dishonest: S2 TA 1968

• Ghost Test applied - Objectively dishonest & Subjectively dishonest

The exceptions...

S2(1): Had a right in law to take the property - [Small]

S2(2) Would of had the owners consent had they known

S2(3) Could not find owner with reasonable steps taken

Intent to permanently deprive: S6 TA 1968

• [Marshell] - Deprive of profits
• [Velumyl] - Replacement of item does not negate the theft
• [Easom] - Conditional theft

Robbery: S8 Theft Act 1968

Theft + Use of/Threat of force + Intention to use force or person in fear of being subjected to force

Force:

• [R v Dawson & James] - Force is an ordinary word which can be understood by the jury
• [B and R v DPP] - Victim does not have to fear force, it is the intention for force that is important
• [R v Robinson] - If def believs they have legal right to object, may not be liable

Threat of force:

• [R v Bentham] - (Fingers in coat pocket like a gun) Intended to cause fear

Immediatly before/after theft:

• [R v Hale] or [R v Lockely] - Theft was a continuing act

Burglary: S9 TA 1968

LCJ Scrutton - "When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase you do not expect them to slide down the bannisters"

Going beyond permission granted:

• [R v Walkington] - Went behind the till
• [R v Smith & Jones] - (Stole the Tv from parents) - Not a tresspasser, but not permission to steal
• [R v Barker] - Used key and trespassed into the house

S.9(1)(a): Enters building explicitly to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage

S.9(1)(b): Enters building THEN decideds to commit Theft, or GBH

Effective entry:

[R v Brown] - Leaning through a shop window and grapping items is an effective entry

Building: [B and S v Leathley] - Building has permanence, therefore is a building

Criminal Damage: S1 Criminal Damage Act 1971

Destorys or damages property + intention/recklessness to whether property would be destoryed/damaged

• [Roe v Kingerlee] - Time and effort to clean up
• [A (a juvenile) v R] - (Spat on officers uniform) Not criminal damage, can be easily wiped off
• [Morphitis v Salmon] - Not criminal damage, scratch on scaffolding pole is too trivial
• [Roper v Knott] - Slight damage therefore guilty, does not have to be made completly useless

Lawful excuse:

S.5(3): Belief is subjective and must be honestly held...

• [R v Smith] - (Took out cabling that he installed, casuing criminal damage) Didnt have the mens rea for the damage as he believed that he owned it

S.5(2): Where there is belief in consent or belief in the immediate neccessity to protect property

• [R v Denton] - (Boss asked worker to set fire to factory) Wasnt liable

Aggravated Criminal Damage: S1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Criminal damage + intention/reckless to endanger life

[Steer] - The danger to life must come from the damage caused, not from the source of the damage

[R v Warwick] - Def rammed a police car and threw bricks at it, showering the officers with broken glass

Reckless danger to life = [R v Webster] - Dropping a stone onto train, casuing debris to shower passengers

Arson: S1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971

If the 'destroying or damaging' property is casued by fire, the offence becomes arson

Prosecution must prove intention or recklessness as to whether life was endangered

[Miller] - Arson can be committed by an ommission to prevent damage by fire

Fraud by false representation: S2 Fraud Act 2006

False rep + knowing it may be false/misleading + dishonesty + intention to make gain/loss to other

Actus Reus:

• S.2(2) - A representation is false, it is untrue/misleading and def knows this = [DPP v Ray]
• S.2(3) - False representation to fact or law = [R v Rai]
• S.2(4) - False rep can be expressed or implied = (Implied) [Barnard]
• S.2(5) - A false rep to a machine (ATM), system or device

Mens Rea: S2(1) FA 2006

Disonest - Ghosh Test

Knowing that the representation may be untrue/misleading

Intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause a loss or expose another to risk of loss

Obtaining services dishonestly: S.11 Fraud Act 2006

Actus Reus:

Must prove that a service had been obtained, eg. climbing a fence to watch a football match

A service must be one which has to be paid for, also includes banking service - [Sofroniou]

Mens Rea:

Dishonest - Ghosh Test

Knowing that the service had to be paid for

Have intention, at the time of payment, to avoid payment in full or in part

Making off without payment: S3(1) Theft Act 1978

Actus Reus:

1.) Goods supplied and services done -[R v Troughten] = Service not completed, therefore, no makning off without payment 

2.) Makes off from the spot - Must leave the premises

• [Brooke v Brookes] = Did leave the premises
• [McDavitt] = Did not leave the premises

3.) Fails to pay on the spot

[R v Vincent] - Made a deal to not pay on the spot, therefore not liable

Mens Rea:

Dishonesty - Ghosh Test

Knowledge that payment is required on the spot

Intention to avoid payment permanently - [Allen] = Did not intend to avoid payment permanently

Blackmail: S21 Theft Act 1968

When def wishes to make a gain for himself or another, or a loss to another through making unwarrented demands with menaces

Actus Reus:

Unwarrented demand:

• Expressed - oral or written = [Treacy v DPP]
• Implied - not actually demanding, but impliying that demands have been made = [R v Collister & Warhurst]

Menaces: No statutory meaning, but includes

• Threat of violence
• Any action which is detrimental or unpleasing - [Thorne v Motor Trade Association]
• A warning that such action is intended - [Thorne v Motor Trade Association]

Menaces (Continued):

Under [R v Clear], it must only be proven that the reasonable man would see the menaces as influencial

If the victim is timid, def can still be liable if they were aware of victims timidness - [Garwood]

Mens Rea:

An intent to make the demand, with a view to gain, or an intent, to cause loss to the victim.

Covers an time of gains and losses such as the repayment of a debt - [R v Parkes]

Anything with economic value - [Bevans]

Things with no monetary value, such as a kiss, are not covered

May not be liabe for Blackmail, if...

• They believe they had reasonable grounds to make the demand, and
• The use of menaces is the only proper means of reinforcing the demand

However, under [R v Harvey], any threat involving the use of violence is an improper means of reinforcing a demand

Duress by threats:

Graham Test: - Subjective then Objective test

• Was the def under threat of death or serious violence?
• Were a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the same characteristics of the def have done the same?

[Valerama-Vega] - Was more concern about his homesexuality being leaked rather than threat of violence, therefore could not have the defence

[R v Cole] - (Robbed bank) The crime MUST be connected to the offence committed

Characteristics: 

Cannot be compared to...

• IQ
• Timidness
• Provocation
• Self Induced

Self-Induced Duress:

[Hasam] - (Violent gang) Could not rely, can foresee that a violent gang will give threats

[Shepered] - (Non-violent gang) Could rely

Immediacy of threat:

[R v Hudson & Taylor] - Can only rely when the threat was playing on the mind of the defendant and feared death or serious violence if offence was not committed

Duress of circumstance:

First mentioned in the case of [Willer]

"When the def is wholly driven by the force of circumstances in doing what he did"

First used in the case of [R v Conway] (Driving away from 'assassins')

Martin Test - 

1.) Nature of the threat - what the reasonable man would see as threat - Characteristics from [Bowen] are relevant

2.) Reasonable & proportionate action - [DPP v Bell] = Stopped driving when the threat had passed

3.) The Nature of the test - The Graham Test, but applied to circumstance instead

4.) Limits to the defence - Characteristics, Oppurtunities to escape, Self-Induced duress