Law - Unit 1 - Section B - Part 2

?
  • Created by: e_m_e
  • Created on: 10-11-21 12:12
Theft - Law
Theft Act 1968
1 of 165
Theft - Legal Test
A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it - S1
2 of 165
Appropriation
S3
3 of 165
D assumes a right of the owner
Morris
4 of 165
V doesn't have to be deprived of property
Pitham
5 of 165
Going beyond permissions granted by the owner
Lawrence
6 of 165
Consent obtained fraudulently
Gomez
7 of 165
Accepting property from a person they know is vunerable
Hinks
8 of 165
Property
S4
9 of 165
Information is not property
Oxford v Moss
10 of 165
Wild flowers aren't property, unless sold
S4(3)
11 of 165
Wild animals aren't property
S4(4)
12 of 165
Belonging to another
S5
13 of 165
D can be liable for stealing their own property
Turner (No 2)
14 of 165
Can steal property already stolen
Kelly and Lindsay
15 of 165
Can steal property the owner didn't know they owned
Woodman
16 of 165
Property received under obligation
Davidge v Bunnett
17 of 165
Legal obligation to return property given by mistake
Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1983)
18 of 165
Dishonesty
S2
19 of 165
Believed they had a legal right to the property
S2(1)(a)
20 of 165
Believed the V would consent
S2(1)(b)
21 of 165
Believed the owner can't be found by taking reasonable steps
S2(1)(c)
22 of 165
Still dishonest if the D is willing to pay
S2(2)
23 of 165
Ivey Test
-D knows the facts of the case
-The reasonable and honest person would consider the D's actions dishonest
24 of 165
Intention to permanently deprive
S6
25 of 165
D treats the property as their own regardless of the rights of the owner
Lavender
26 of 165
Still intention to permanently deprive if D offers to return the property, subject to conditions
Raphael and another
27 of 165
If D cannot return the property in its exact condition, it's an intention to permanently deprive
Velumyl
28 of 165
Conditional intent can be attempted theft
Attorney General's Reference (No 1 and 2 of 1979)
29 of 165
Robbery
S8(1) Theft Act 1968
30 of 165
Completed theft is required
Robinson
31 of 165
Slightest appropriation is sufficient
Corcoran v Anderton
32 of 165
Force/ threat of force must occur immediately before or at the time of stealing
S8(1)
33 of 165
Tying up the V after is part of a continuing act
Hale
34 of 165
Pushing a V to escape is part of a continuing act
Lockley
35 of 165
D must use force or threat of force
S8(1)
36 of 165
Nudging is force
Dawson and James
37 of 165
Immaterial if the V felt threatened if it was the D's intention
B and R
38 of 165
Snatching property is not force, as it is unnoticeable
P v DPP
39 of 165
Force can be indirect
Clouden
40 of 165
Threat of future force doesn't satisfy the legal test
Khan
41 of 165
Threat doesn't have to be as the V imagines it
Bentham
42 of 165
Force doesn't have to be towards the V who had their property stolen
S8(1)
43 of 165
Force is used to steal, if used for any other reason, the legal test isn't satisfied
S8(1)
44 of 165
D is dishonest
S2 Theft Act 1968
45 of 165
D had an intention to permanently deprive
S6 Theft Act 1968
46 of 165
Mens rea - Part 2 - direct intent to use force to steal
Mohan, Vinall
47 of 165
Substantial and effective entry
Collins
48 of 165
Substantial and effective entry if the D can handle the items
Brown
49 of 165
Substantial and effective entry, if part of the D's body is in
Ryan
50 of 165
Inhabited place
S9(4)
51 of 165
Permanent and intended to endure for a long time
Stevens v Gourley
52 of 165
Permanent and intended to endure for a long time, if there is an electricity supply
Leathley
53 of 165
Not permanent and intended to endure for a long time, if the wheels are still attached, indicates it was intended to remain as a vehicle
Seekings and Gould
54 of 165
D is not a trespasser if they had implied/ expressed permission to enter a building
Collins
55 of 165
D is a trespasser if they enter a part of a building they don't have permission to
Walkington
56 of 165
Trespasser if they exceed permissions
Smith and Jones
57 of 165
Burglary - intention before
S9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968
58 of 165
Mens rea- Part 1 - direct intent or recklessness
Mohan, Collins
59 of 165
Part 2 - intention of an ulterior offence
-steal
-cause GBH
-cause unlawful criminal damage
60 of 165
Burglary - intention inside the building
S9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968
61 of 165
Actus reus of an ulterior offence
-Theft
-Attempted theft
-GBH
-Attempted GBH
62 of 165
Mens rea - Part 1 - direct intent or recklessness
Mohan, Collins
63 of 165
Attempts - Law
S1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
64 of 165
Actus reus - More than merely preparatory
S1(1), Jones
65 of 165
D doesn't have to perform the last act before the crime proper or reach the point of no return
Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1992)
66 of 165
Embarked on the crime proper
Gullefer
67 of 165
Questions to consider:
Geddes
68 of 165
Mens rea - D must intend the more than merely preparatory act and intend to commit the full offence
S1(1)
69 of 165
For attempted murder, the D must intend to kill
Whybrow
70 of 165
Conditional intent for theft is attempted theft
Attorney General's Reference (No 1 and 2 of 1979)
71 of 165
Recklessness doesn't satisfy the mens rea
Millard and Vernon
72 of 165
Attempts - Impossibility
S1(2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
73 of 165
Legal impossibility
Unknown to the D, what they're attempting is not an illegal offence
-Taaffe
74 of 165
Factual Impossibility
D's attempt is a crime, but it's impossible to commit
-Shivpuri
75 of 165
To protect themselves, another or property
Common law
76 of 165
To prevent a crime
S(3)1 Criminal Law Act 1967
77 of 165
Legal test
-Was the use of force necessary
-Was the force used reasonably in the circumstances
78 of 165
The use of force is not justified if it's not necessary
Hussain and another
79 of 165
If D uses self-defense error, but had an honest belief there was a threat, the defense is available
Williams
80 of 165
If the D has a mistaken belief while voluntarily intoxicated, defense is unavailable
O'Grady
81 of 165
D has no obligation to retreat from the threat of an attack
Bird
82 of 165
D who fears an attack can make preparation for self-defense
Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1983)
83 of 165
If D is initially aggressive in order to have an excuse for more serious violence, defense is unavailable
Rashford
84 of 165
Force used must be reasonable based on the circumstances as the D believes them to be
Palmer
85 of 165
If disproportionate force is used, defense is unavailable
S76(6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (CJIA)
86 of 165
Household exception
S76(7)(5a) CJIA 2008
87 of 165
Extent the D appreciated the exact measure of necessary action
S76(7)(a) CJIA 2008
88 of 165
Evidence to support the D honestly and instinctively believed they took reasonable actions
S76(7)(b) CJIA 2008
89 of 165
If the threat is over, and force is used, the defense is unavailable
Martin
90 of 165
V must know the nature and quality of the act
Tabassum
91 of 165
Consent can't be out of fear
Olugboja
92 of 165
Informed consent, V must know the risk
Dica
93 of 165
Harm can't be greater than common assault
Attorney General's Reference (No 6 of 1980)
94 of 165
Public policy exceptions
-Lawful chastisement
-Reasonable surgical interference
-Body adornment
-Sport
-Dangerous exhibitions
-Horseplay
95 of 165
Lawful and reasonable chastisement of children, below ABH
S58 Children Act 2004
96 of 165
Harm within the rules of a game is lawful
Barnes
97 of 165
Harm outside the rules of a game is unlawful
Billinghurst
98 of 165
Deliberate and unnecessary injury during sport
Johnson
99 of 165
Adults can refuse treatment/ surgery
Blaue
100 of 165
Child below 16 can consent/ refuse treatment if they have...
Gillick Competency
101 of 165
If a person lacks mental capacity to consent, treatment can be provided if it's in their best interest
F
102 of 165
A person consenting to body adornment must have the capacity to consent
Burrell and Harmer
103 of 165
Body adornment between consenting spouses is lawful
Wilson
104 of 165
Body adornment between consenting sadomasochists is unlawful
Brown
105 of 165
Consent is invalid if the person providing body adornments isn't medically trained
BM
106 of 165
If D has a genuine mistaken belief the V was consenting to horseplay, it is lawful
Jones
107 of 165
Intoxicated genuine mistaken belief is lawful if D wouldn't realise the risk sober
Richardson and Irwin
108 of 165
If the D makes out to be something they're not, the consent is invalid
Dica
109 of 165
If the D makes out to be somebody they're not, the consent is invalid
Elbekkay
110 of 165
A person cannot consent to death
Pretty
111 of 165
Cannot be used for murder or attempted murder
Howe, Gotts
112 of 165
Legal Test - Law
Graham/ Hasan
113 of 165
Legal Test
-nature and target of the threat
-did the D act reasonably
-link between the crime and the threat
-D must have been unable to escape the threat
-did the D leave themselves open to a threat
114 of 165
Must be death or serious injury
Graham
115 of 165
If one threat is of death or serious injury, the cumulative effect of all the threats can be considered
Valderrama-Vega
116 of 165
Threat of outing sexuality is insufficient
Valderrama-Vega
117 of 165
Threat of **** is sufficient
Ashley
118 of 165
Threat of psychological injury is insufficient
Baker and Wilkins
119 of 165
Threat doesn't have to be immediate, but imminent
Abdul-Hussain
120 of 165
Toward the D or someone they feel responsible for
Wright
121 of 165
Towards the D, their family or someone close to them
Hasan
122 of 165
Did the D act reasonably
Graham Test
123 of 165
Stage 1 - D must have a reasonable and genuine perception of a threat of death or serious injury
Lairns
124 of 165
Characteristics
Bowen
125 of 165
Allowed characteristics
-Age
-Gender
-Pregnancy
-Psychiatric illness
-Physical disabilities
126 of 165
Not allowed characteristics
-Low IQ
-Timidity
-Self-induced abuse
-Emotional instability
127 of 165
Must be a link between the crime and the threat
Cole
128 of 165
If their is a safe avenue of escape, defense is unavailable
Gill
129 of 165
If the threat is operating on the D's mind at the time of the offence, defense is available
Hudson and Taylor
130 of 165
If the D knowingly and voluntarily associates with a criminal gang known for violence, defense is unavailable
Sharp
131 of 165
Non-violent gang, defense is unavailable
Shepherd
132 of 165
Available for all offences except murder, Howe, and attempted murder, Gotts
Pommell
133 of 165
Defense is available if the D is acting towards a threat of serious injury or death
Conway
134 of 165
The legal test for DBC is the same as DBT, except the link between the crime and threat
Martin
135 of 165
Legal Test - Law
M'Naghten
136 of 165
Legal Test
-Defect of reason
-Disease of the mind
-Didn't know the nature and quality of the act or did not know the act was wrong
137 of 165
Inability to use powers of reasoning
Clarke
138 of 165
Complete loss of reasoning
Clarke
139 of 165
May be permanent or temporary
Sullivan
140 of 165
-Internal factor
-Impairs the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding
Sullivan
141 of 165
Can be temporary or a medical condition that affects the brain
Kemp
142 of 165
Hyperglycaemic episode (high blood pressure) can use the defense
Hennessy
143 of 165
Hypoglycemic episode (low blood pressure) can't use the defense
Quick
144 of 165
Voluntary intoxication is an external factor
Coley
145 of 165
Did not know the nature and quality of the act
Oye
146 of 165
Did know the nature and quality of the act
Codere
147 of 165
Understanding the act is wrong is based on legality, not the D's morality
Windle
148 of 165
An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing
Bratty
149 of 165
Complete loss of voluntary control
Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992)
150 of 165
Legal Test
-Total loss of voluntary control
-Caused by an external factor
151 of 165
External factor
Kay v Butterworth
152 of 165
Self-induced automatism
Bailey
153 of 165
Specific intent offence
-Full defense - Bailey
-Could be guilty of an alternative basic intent offence
154 of 165
Basic intent offences
-Defense is unavailable if the D was reckless getting into an automatic state
155 of 165
If the state was caused by an intoxicating substance, defense is unavailable
Coley
156 of 165
If the D is unaware their conduct would lead to a self-induced state, the D wasn't reckless, defense is available
Hardie
157 of 165
D commits a specific intent offence, and doesn't form the mens rea, the defense is unavailable
Sheehan and Moore
158 of 165
If the D forms the mens rea, defense is unavailable
Coley
159 of 165
If the D consumes an intoxicating substance to get the courage to commit an offence, the defense is unavailable
Gallagher
160 of 165
Unavailable for basic intent
Majewski
161 of 165
Exception if the D wouldn't have realised the risk if sober
Richardson and Irwin
162 of 165
Full defense for specific and basic intent
Hardie
163 of 165
Unavailable if the D forms the mens rea
Kingston
164 of 165
Intoxicated mistake
-D commits an offence while voluntarily intoxicated in error as they misunderstood the situation
-Lipman
-Full defense for specific
-Unavailable for basic
165 of 165

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Theft - Legal Test

Back

A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it - S1

Card 3

Front

Appropriation

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

D assumes a right of the owner

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

V doesn't have to be deprived of property

Back

Preview of the front 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 »