Unit 4 - Theft, Robbery, Burglary, Making Off Without Payment, Blackmail, Fraud, Criminal Damage

?
THEFT - S1 of the Theft Act 1968
The defendant dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.
1 of 99
S4 - Property
Tangible and intangible possessions. Land, electricity, and broadband cannot be stolen. Wild plants and animals cannot be stolen unless it is for commercial gain.
2 of 99
S4 - Property (cases)
Oxford v Moss (cannot steal information) R v Kelley and Lindsay (cannot steal bodies)
3 of 99
S5 - Belonging to another
If the property belongs to any other person who has a better right or interest to it.
4 of 99
S5 - Belonging to another (cases)
R v Turner - can steal your own property. Marshall v London Transport - there is no ownership in abandoned goods
5 of 99
S5(3) - Property Received Under an Obligation
Someone receives property under an obligation to deal with it in a specific way...it remains property belonging to another - Davidge v Burnett.
6 of 99
S5(4) - Receiving Things by Mistake
'Where a person gets property by another's mistake and is under an obligation to make restoration, and an intention not to return shall be seen as an intention to deprive that other person.' Attorney General's Reference Number One of 1983.
7 of 99
S3 - Appropriation
Any assumption of the rights of the owner.
8 of 99
S3 - Appropriation (cases)
R v Gomez - Gomez test: 1. Whether there is consent or not is irrelevant. 2. If you are dishonest, the appropriation of property, even with consent, is completed when you touch it. R v Hinks - was given £60,000 but was dishonest.
9 of 99
S2 - Dishonesty
General rule set by R v Ghosh. 1. Are the defendant's actions dishonest by the standard of an ordinary person? 2. Was the defendant aware that by the standards of an ordinary person his actions were dishonest?
10 of 99
S6 - Intention to Permanently Deprive
Conditional intent is not enough for theft. Borrowing: if you take something and use up the goodness or give it back with a lesser value then it is theft. Borrowing money: you cannot return the exact same money that you took.
11 of 99
S6 - Intention to Permanently Deprive
Conditional intent: R v Easom. Borrowing: R v Lloyd. Borrowing money: R v Velumyl. Treating as your own to dispose of regardless of the owners rights: DPP v Lavender (swapped doors)
12 of 99
ROBBERY - S8 of the Theft Act 1968
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, he uses force on any person.
13 of 99
An act
The defendant must have all the elements of theft.
14 of 99
An act (cases)
Corcoran v Anderton - the defendant pused the victim to the ground and then took her bag. The defendant later dropped the bag, but because of the rules in R v Gomez, he had still stolen her bag.
15 of 99
Force or threats of force
The force or threat of force can be towards the victim or any person. How much force is needed is a question of fact for the jury, but it can be fairly minimal.
16 of 99
Force or threats of force (cases)
R v Clouden - wrenched a shopping bag out of the victim's hand. The judge held that this was enough to be a robbery.
17 of 99
The force must be at the time of, or immediately before the robbery
The force must either be at the time of the robbery, or immediately before it happens. When force is used to escape, the court can apply the principle of continuing acts.
18 of 99
The force must be at the time of, or immediately before the robbery (cases)
R v Lockley - stole two cans of beer from a shop and used force to escape the shop.
19 of 99
Mens Rea
1. The defendant must have the mens rea for the theft. 2. There must also be an intention or recklessness to use force.
20 of 99
Mens Rea (cases)
There must be an intention or recklessness to use force - R v Robinson - threatened the victim with a knife while trying to get his money back. The court held that he did not have the dishonesty element of theft.
21 of 99
9(1)A BURGLARY - Theft Act 1968
The defendant enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit any such offences; theft, criminal damage, or GBH.
22 of 99
S9(4) - buildings
Habited vehicles and vessels. With other structures they must be relatively permanent and have a degree of structure.
23 of 99
S9(4) - buildings (cases)
B&S v Leathley - a 25 foot freezer was considered to be a building because it had not been moved in two years and was connected to the mains electricity.
24 of 99
Part of a building
The defendant does not have consent to enter the part of the building, even if they have consent to enter other ares of the building.
25 of 99
Part of a building (cases)
R v Walkington - was found behind the till in a shop. He was found guilty of burglary as a trespasser into part of a building.
26 of 99
Entry
This is a question of fact for the jury. R v Collins sets the test for entry into a building as 'substantial and effective' entry. Which means little more than a part of your has to be inside the building.
27 of 99
Trespass
When you enter premises without consent, or with consent but you intend to exceed you consent.
28 of 99
Trespass (cases)
R v Jones and Smith - stole his father's television from his house.
29 of 99
Mens Rea
1. The defendant must have the intention or be reckless as to trespass. 2. The defendant must have the intention to carry out, and have the mens rea for the ulterior offence of theft, criminal damage, or GBH.
30 of 99
9(1)b BURGLARY
Having entered into any building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or that part of it inflicts grievous bodily harm on anybody.
31 of 99
9(1)b burglary
Follow the same steps for 9(1)b that are in 9(1)a burglary
32 of 99
MAKING OFF WITHOUT PAYMENT - S3(1) of the Theft Act 1978
A person who knowing that payment on teh spot for any goods supplied or services done is required or expected of him, dishonestly makes off without having paid and with the intent to avoid payment of the amount due.
33 of 99
Goods or services
If a service is not completed, then there is no offence.
34 of 99
Goods or services (cases)
Troughton v MPC - hired a taxi to take him home but was so drunk he couldn't remember where he lived. The taxi driver dropped him at the police station but he ran off. As the service was not completed (he didn't get home) there was no crime committed
35 of 99
Payment required
It must be shown that payment on the spot was required or expected, if it wasn't, then no offence was committed.
36 of 99
Payment required (cases)
R v Vincent - had arranged with a hotle to pay his bills once he was paid. This mean that 'payment on the spot' was not required and therefore no offence was committed.
37 of 99
Makes off from the spot
The defendant leaves the sene where payment was expected. This is a question of fact for the jury.
38 of 99
Makes off from the spot (cases)
R v McDavitt - realised that he didn't have the money to pay for his meal and hid in the toilets until the police arrived. The moment he left the table with dishonest intentions, he committed making off without payment.
39 of 99
The defendant has not paid
The payment must be due, and the defendant has not paid it.
40 of 99
Dishonesty
Dishonesty is decided by the Ghosh test. 1. The defendant's actions were dishonest by the standards of an ordinary person. 2. The defendant was aware that by the standards of the ordinary person his actions were dishonest.
41 of 99
Knowledge that payment on the spot is required
The defendant generally knows that payment is due because of custom and practice, or because a bill is presented. If the defendant does not know that payment on the spot is required then no offence can be committed.
42 of 99
Intention to avoid payment
There must be an intention to permanently avoid payment.
43 of 99
Intention to avoid payment (cases)
R v Allen - left a hotel wihtout paying for his stay but said that he would pay once he came into monies.
44 of 99
BLACKMAIL - S21 of the Theft Act 1968
A person is guilty of blakcmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause a loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demands with menaces.
45 of 99
A demand
DPP v Collister and Warhurst shows that a demand can be direct or implied. DPP v Treacy shows that the offence is completed once the demand is made, it is not dependent on the victim giving in to the demand.
46 of 99
Unwarranted
S21(1) - a demand is unwarranted unless he can show that he believed: he had reasonable grounds for making the demand, and the use of menaces was a 'proper means' of reinforcing the demand.
47 of 99
Unwarranted (cases)
R v Harvey - shows that unlawful things cannot be 'proper means' to support the deamnd.
48 of 99
Menaces
R v Clear set up the objective test, that whether or not the victim gives in to the threat is irrelevant.
49 of 99
Known susceptibility
R v Garwood - where a threat would not affect a normal person, there can still be menaces if the defendant is aware of the likely effect on the victim.
50 of 99
Mens Rea
1. intention to make the demand with menaces. 2. intention to make a gain or cause a loss.
51 of 99
A gain
By keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one has not. R v Bevans - held a nurse at gun point and demanded morphine. He made a gain by getting the morphine.
52 of 99
A loss
By not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has. R v Abelwhite - dug up the body of a relative who sold guinea pigs to a testing company. He demanded that they stopped selling them, and he would give the body back.
53 of 99
FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION -S2 of the Fraud Act 2006
The defendant dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself, or to cause a loss to another or to expose another to the risk of loss.
54 of 99
S2(4) - Representation
A representation can be express or implied.
55 of 99
Express
Something that is said or done. R v Silverman - overcharged two women for work done on their flat. The false quote was an express representation.
56 of 99
Implied
Assuming something based on tradition and common courtesy. DPP v Ray - ordered a meal in a restaurant but realised that he could not pay for it. By sitting in the restaurant he had an implied representation that he could pay for the meal.
57 of 99
S2(3) - fact, law or state of mind
An express or implied representation can be to fact, law or state of mind. Fact = R v Lambie State of mind = DPP v Ray
58 of 99
S2(5) - computer devices
A representation may be regarded as being made if it is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communication.
59 of 99
S2(2) - the representation must be false
S2(2)a - false is to be untrue or misleading
60 of 99
S2(5) - when the representation is made
Fraus is committed as soon as the representation is made.
61 of 99
S2(1)a - dishonesty
The test for dishonesty is set out in the case of R v Ghosh: 1. Are the defendant's actions dishonest by the standards of an ordinary person? 2. Was the defendant aware that by the standards of an ordinary person, their actions were dishonest?
62 of 99
S2(1)b - make a gain or cause a loss
The defendant must make the representation with the intention to make a gain or cause a loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to happen.
63 of 99
S2(2)b - knowledge
The defendant is aware that thte statement is false, or is aware that it may be false and they choose to make it anyway.
64 of 99
OBTAINING SERVICES DISHONESTLY - S11 of the Fraus Act 2006
The defendant obtains services on the basis that payment is required, he obtains them without having paid in full, he knows that they are only made available on the basis of payment but intends not to pay the payment in full or in part.
65 of 99
Actus Reus
1. The defendant must obtain a service as a result from a dishonest act. 2. S11(2)b says the services must be made available on the basis of payment. 3. The defendant must not pay in full or in part.
66 of 99
Mens Rea
1. The defendant is aware that the service is made available on the basis of payment, 2. Dishonesty - the Ghosh test. 3. Intention not to pay in full or in part - R v Bushell - obtained sexual services but could not pay for them.
67 of 99
BASIC CRIMINAL DAMAGE - S1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
The defendant destroys or damages property belonging to another either intentionally or recklessly.
68 of 99
Damages or destroys
Destroys - rendering the prop useless as well as total destruction. Damages - where property is made imperfect or inoperative, or where the harm affects its usefulness or value.
69 of 99
Damages or destroys (cases)
Hardman v CC Somerset - used paint to draw on the pavement and said that the damage was only temporary because ot would wash off in the rain. The court said it was criminal damage because it took the victim time and expense to wash it off.
70 of 99
Damages or destroys (cases)
Morphitis v Salmon - scratched a scaffolding pole. Was not found to be criminal damage because it was likely to be scratched anyway, and it did not affect its usefulness and integrity.
71 of 99
S10(1) - Property
All tangible property including money and wild animals which have been tamed or kept in captivity.
72 of 99
S10(2) - Belonging
The property must belong to another, it cannot belong to the defendant. (ONLY FOR THE BASIC OFFENCE)
73 of 99
Mens Rea
Intention - R v Mohan - to want or desire the outcome. Recklessness - R v Cunningham - to be aware of the risks but carry on anyway as confirmed in R v G and another.
74 of 99
S5(2)a - Lawful excuse
The defendant believes that the other party would have consented to the damage.
75 of 99
S5(2)b - Lawful excuse
Where the defendant destroys the property of another in order to protect other property belonging to himslef or another.
76 of 99
S5(2)b - Lawful excuse (cases)
R v Denton - started a fire because his boss had encouraged him to do it so that he could make a fraudulent claim. The defendant honestly believed that his employer could oreder such an action.
77 of 99
AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE - S1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
Where a person destroys or damages property whether belonging to himself or another, intending to endanger the life of another or being reckless about this.
78 of 99
S1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
1. It is not necessary that someone's life actually be put at risk - R v Sangha. 2. The property does not have to belong to someone else. 3. The defence of lawful excuse does not apply.
79 of 99
S1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
4. The danger to life must come directly from the damage to property and not from some other source - R v Steer - left live wire cables exposed, this endangered life.
80 of 99
Mens Rea
1. The defendant must have intention or recklessness as to damaging or destroying any property. 2. Must have an intention or recklessness as to whether life is endangered by the destruction or damage.
81 of 99
Mens Rea
3. Intention or recklessness has the same meaning as the basic offence of criminal damage - R v Cooper - lived in a hostel for people with mental illnesses. He set fire to his bed. He did not have the mens rea for S1(2) criminal damage.
82 of 99
ARSON - S1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
If criminal damage is committed by fire then you simply need to put, "as it is criminal damage by fire it would be covered by arson."
83 of 99
INTOXICATION
It is not a drop down defence.
84 of 99
Type of intoxication
Both alcohol and drugs can be intoxication - R v Lipman - took his girlfriend's LSD and hallucinated that snakes were coming out of her throat, to stop the snakes he shoved a sheet down her throat which suffocated her.
85 of 99
Extent of intoxication
R v Kingston say that it cannot be a mere release of inhibitions, the defendant must be incapable of forming mens rea.
86 of 99
Distinction between baisc and specific intent
R v Majewski took drugs and alcohol, and went down to his local pub and got into a fight. Specific intent = the defendant is incapable of forming mens rea. Basic intent = provides evidence that the defendant acted recklessly.
87 of 99
Dutch courage
R v Allen says that if the court believes that you have formed mens rea in advance, and have then gotten drunk to carry the act out, it is not allowed as intoxication.
88 of 99
Jaggard v Dickinson rule
If the jury believes that the defendant's belief was genuine then it can be applied to the S5(2)a of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
89 of 99
DURESS BY THREATS
Duress is a common law offence, and give the defendant a complete acquittal.
90 of 99
The threat
There must be a threat of death or serious violence. R v Valderama-Vega says that the jury must believe that without the threat of death or serious violence, the defendant wouldn't have committed the offence.
91 of 99
Specific offence
It must be a clear threat that tells the defendant to commit a specific offence. R v Cole owed money to moeny lenders, they told him to get it ot they would beat up him and his girlfriend. The blackmailer did not tell him where to get the money from.
92 of 99
General test - Graham test
1. Did the defendant act the way he did because he feared the threat? 2. Would a sober person, of reasonable firmness, have acted in the same way? R v Bowen says that the court can take into account age, gender and specific medical conditions.
93 of 99
Self-induced and escape routes
R v Hasan sets the precedent for this. Self-induced - if you have consorted with criminals, duress will not work. Escape routes - if you are safe at the time the threat is made, or have a chance to tell the police, that is an escape route.
94 of 99
DURESS BY CIRCUMSTANCE
Teh defendant is driven to the offence by a specific threat but by situation. R v Willer drove on the pavement to avoid a gang.
95 of 99
Nature of threat
R v Conway believed that he was being chased so he sped away from the car which turned out to be an undercover police car.
96 of 99
Baisc test
This is set by R v Martin but is the same as the Graham test. 1. Did the defendant act the way he did because he feared the threat? 2. Would a sober person, of reasonalbe firmness, have acted in the smae way?
97 of 99
Self-induced duress
R v Rodgers and Rose - escaaped from a prison, they were criminals so it was self-induced.
98 of 99
Escape routes
R v Pommell - were in a court house when they were threatened. They had multiple opportunities to tell the police or a judge.
99 of 99

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Tangible and intangible possessions. Land, electricity, and broadband cannot be stolen. Wild plants and animals cannot be stolen unless it is for commercial gain.

Back

S4 - Property

Card 3

Front

Oxford v Moss (cannot steal information) R v Kelley and Lindsay (cannot steal bodies)

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

If the property belongs to any other person who has a better right or interest to it.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

R v Turner - can steal your own property. Marshall v London Transport - there is no ownership in abandoned goods

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 Theft, Robbery, Burglary, Making Off Without Payment, Blackmail, Fraud, Criminal Damage, Intoxication, Duress resources »