Law property offences

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: kira-mai
  • Created on: 25-04-18 13:45
Gayford V Chouler
slight damage is enough for the actus reus of basic criminal damage
1 of 56
roe v kingerlee
the damage doesnt have to be permanent, as long as it takes time, money and effort to return it to its original state in criminal damage
2 of 56
creswell v currie
wild animals that havent been reduced into possession will not be considered property in criminal damage
3 of 56
jaggard v dickinson
lawful excuse for criminal damage - consent
4 of 56
r v hill and hall
lawful excuse criminal damage - protection of property
5 of 56
r v pempliton
the mens rea of criminal damage is i/sr about the damage or destruction, not the act that caused the damage.
6 of 56
r v steer
the danger to life must result from the cd not the ac which causes the damage
7 of 56
r v merrick
the property can belong to the d for aggrivated cd
8 of 56
denton
lawful excuse is available for arson
9 of 56
miller
arson committed by omission
10 of 56
cooper
the mr for arson is the same as basic cd
11 of 56
criminal damage act 1971
act that governs criminal damage
12 of 56
fraud act 2006
governs fraud by false representation and obtaining serives dishonestly
13 of 56
R v Rai
is representation was true but becomes false, a failure to tell can be the ar of fraud by false representation
14 of 56
r v hamilton
false representation can be expressed
15 of 56
r v bernard
representation can be implied
16 of 56
r v Allen
in obtaining services dishonestly, there must be an intention to avoid payment, not to delayy or defer the payment.
17 of 56
R v Mcdavitt
in making off without payment, d must depart without paying
18 of 56
troughton v met police
the service must be complete or there is no offence in making off without payment.
19 of 56
Vincent
payment on the spot must be reuqested or expected
20 of 56
Pitham v Hehl
appropriation of property - assume the rights of the owner - includes offering to sell
21 of 56
Lawrence
consent through deception - appropriation- appropriation can be even if the consent was gained without deception
22 of 56
Hinks
appropriation as a gift - dishonestly acquires ownership
23 of 56
Kelly and Lindsey
property - anything with value or virtue
24 of 56
Oxford v Moss
information cannot be stolen
25 of 56
Turner
belonging to another - possession or control - can steal own property
26 of 56
Webster
belonging to another - proprietary interest in property
27 of 56
Klineberg and Marsden
belonging to another - property received under obligation -obligation to retain and deal with property in a specific way
28 of 56
Small
dishonestly - three exceptions - it doesn't matter if d mistakenly believed as long as it was genuine
29 of 56
R v Lavender
dispose of includes dealing with in intention to permanently deprive
30 of 56
Raphael and Others
to treat things as ones own includes return of vs property subject to conditions
31 of 56
J and Other
borrowing and lending that is equal to an out right disposal - e.g. returning broken
32 of 56
Corcoran v Anderton
a complete theft is needed for robbery
33 of 56
Dawson and James
the amount of force doesn't need to be substantial
34 of 56
B and R v DPP
the victim doesn't need to be afraid - it is the intention of the perpetrator rather than the fortitude of the victim.
35 of 56
Smith v Desmond
the force must be against the person
36 of 56
Hale
immediately before or at the time of the theft - part of a continuous act - the force can take place at anytime including getting away from the scene
37 of 56
Collins
for burglary the entry must be substantial and effective
38 of 56
Brown
for burglary the entry must be effective
39 of 56
Ryan
for burglary the entry doesn't have to be either substantial or effective
40 of 56
B and S v Leathely
what a building is - anything with a degree of permanence can be an inhabited vehicle or vessel
41 of 56
R v Walkington
part of building - prohibited certain parts
42 of 56
Smith and Jones
must enter as a trespasser of burglary - this can be by going beyond their permission
43 of 56
Collister v Warhurst
the demand can be expressed or implied in blackmail
44 of 56
Treacy v DPP
in blackmail it doesn't matter if the victim doesn't receive the demand, once the demand is made the ar is complete
45 of 56
Harvey
a demand won't be unwarranted if he believes he has reasonable grounds to make the demand, and the use of menaces are proper means of reinforcing the demand
46 of 56
Thorne
menaces are anything detrimental or unpleasant
47 of 56
Clear
an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced by it so as to unwillingly accede to the demand
48 of 56
Harry
where v is intimidated by menaces but the reasonable person is not, there will be no blackmail
49 of 56
Garwood
if the v is known to be cowardly or vulnerable, and the d is aware of the likely affects on v, he could still be liable.
50 of 56
Bevans
property has the same meaning for blackmail as it does for theft.
51 of 56
S9 theft act 1968
Burglary
52 of 56
S8 theft act 1968
robbery
53 of 56
s34 theft act 1968
blackmail
54 of 56
s3 theft act 1978
making off without payment
55 of 56
s1 fraud act 2006
fraud by false representation, obtaining services dishonestly
56 of 56

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

the damage doesnt have to be permanent, as long as it takes time, money and effort to return it to its original state in criminal damage

Back

roe v kingerlee

Card 3

Front

wild animals that havent been reduced into possession will not be considered property in criminal damage

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

lawful excuse for criminal damage - consent

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

lawful excuse criminal damage - protection of property

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »