Theft

Type of Crime Theft Explanation Theft is wider than just taking something without permission. It was defined in The Theft Act 1968 s.1(1), which says a person is guilty of theft: if he honesty appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it This makes up the actus reus and mens rea. The Actus Reus is: Appropriates (s.3) Property (s.4) Belonging to another (s.5) The Mens rea involves: Dishonesty (s.2) The intention of permanently depriving the other of it (s.6) Appropriation s.3(1) This term covers many more types of conduct than take. It is defined in s.3 as, any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner Cases

Actus Reus (Theft)

In this sense assumption means to take over. If you own something you have a right to do what you like with it. If someone else does any of these things with it then they may well have appropriated it because they have assumed your rights. It was held at one time that you could not appropriate something if you had authorisation from the owner, i.e. consent. This caused problems in much case law. In Lawrence (1971) the House of Lords held there could still be an appropriation even if the owner consented. The decision was not without its critics. It was argued, why did the house need to interpret s.3 so widely? The next case appeared to complicate matters further. In Morris (1984), the question was, had appropriation taken place? The Court of Appeal held that appropriation took place when the defendants assumed any of the rights of the owner, so it occurred as soon as the good were removed from the shelf with intent to pay the lower price. The House of Lords interpretation was narrower. Lord Roskill made clear that there must be an adverse interference with those rights. Thus appropriation only took place when the defendant did something unauthorised, in this case switching labels. Morris seemed to contradict Lawrence. According to Morris it can be theft even if you dont take anything. Mens Rea may be harder to prove. If in Morris you intend to pay less than you should, then you intend to permanently deprive the owner of the difference in price. This is likely to be seen as dishonest.

Lawrence (1971) They found a taxi driver guilty of theft after he took more money than the correct fare (about 7 instead of 55p) from a foreign student. The student offered had offered him his wallet after he said 1 wasnt enough. He argued it could not be theft because the student gave him the wallet. The House disagreed. Morris (1984) The defendants switched labels on good in a supermarket with intent to pay the lower price. Gomes (1993) Defendant was the assistant manager of a shop. He was asked by an acquaintance to obtain some goods in exchange for two stolen cheques. Knowing that the cheques were stolen. The defendant got the shop manager to authorise the sale of the goods to the acquaintance. On the basis of Morris there was no appropriation and so no theft. The prosecution appealed to the House of Lords.

The following two cases are key to appropriation. In Gomes (1993) the House decided to revert to Lawrence. They held that it was a clear decision that an act could be an appropriation even if done with consent. They declared Morris to be incorrect on this point. Another key case is Hinks (1998). The Court of Appeal again held that appropriation did not depend on whether there was consent and said consent was only relevant to the issue of dishonesty. It was also held that even a gift could amount to an appropriation. Hinks makes clear that consent is not relevant to appropriation, but is to dishonesty. There may be appropriation in such cases, but if it isnt done dishonestly and with intent to permanently deprive then mens rea wont be proved. In Briggs (2004) the Court of Appeal considered another case where the victim had been deceived into parting with money. They noted that if there could be an appropriation in such cases there would be little need for many of the deception offences. The Courts held that if you come by something innocently but then deal with dishonestly, this can be theft. The courts are still unsure about the issue of appropriation and this shown through their decisions and case law regarding this subject. Property s.4(1) Hinks (1998) Here, a man of limited intelligence had been persuaded to give Mrs Hinks, who claimed it to be his carer, 60,000 over a period of a few months. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for theft. Her appeal was rejected by the House of Lords. Briggs (2004) The defendant was dealing with the purchase of a house on behalf of elderly relatives. The relatives gave authority for money for the purchase to be transferred to the sellers solicitor. They believed they were getting title to the property but in fact title was transferred to the defendant. Their consent to the transfer was therefore induced by fraud. The defendant argued that property was not appropriated where, by fraud, an owner was induced into parting with it.

Kelly (1998) An artist was given access to the Royal College of Surgeons to draw specimens. He took some body parts when accused of

This includes: money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property Real property relates to land; personal would be anything else. Tangible property is something you can touch, whereas intangible means things you cant touch. This is shown in Kelly (1998). In Kelly (1998) the Court of Appeal held it was theft and that parts of a body could come within s.4 if they had been treated in some way, e.g. by preserving them for medical purposes. In Marshall (1998) the Court of Appeal held that there was appropriation of property (the tickets themselves) belonging to the London Underground. Belonging to Another s. 5(1) This is also wide and is not confined to property actually owned by another, having possession or control of it can suffice. The sections states: Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest You can have control of property without knowing of its existence. Thus such property can be stolen. This is shown in Woodman (1974). The owners of the

theft argued that it was not property. You cant own someones body.

Marshall (1998) The defendants acquired underground tickets from travellers and then sold them. On appeal they argued the tickets were not property belonging to another.

Woodman (1974) The owner of a disused business premises sold a load of scarp metal. He didnt know the buyers had left some behind. The defendant went to the property and took some of the remaining scrap. He was convicted of theft.

premises no longer owned the metal, as they had sold it, but they did have control of it. In Hibbert and McKiernan (1948) it was held that taking lost golf balls on a golf course was theft. They had been lost, not abandoned. In Davidge and Bunnett (1984) the defendant was given money by her flatmates to pay bills. She spent it on Christmas present. She was found guilty as she had an obligation to deal with it in a certain way and had not done so. This is provided by Section 5(3). Section 5(4) provides that if you are given something by mistake keeping it can be theft. Dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive relate to mens rea. Dishonesty s.2(1) The Act does not define dishonesty but it does provide three specific situations where the person is not deemed dishonest: 1. S. 2(1) (a) in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it. 2. S. 2(1)(b) in the belief that he would have the others consent 3. S. 2(1) (c) in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered. The belief does not have to be reasonable, just honestly held. This is a subjective question. Small (1987) Defendant had taken a car which had been left over a week with the keys in the ignition. Two issues arose. He argued it had been abandoned and so he believed he had a right to take it s.2 (1) (a). The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction.

Mens Rea (Theft)

In Small (1987) they made clear that the issue under s.2 is whether a belief is honestly held, not whether it is reasonable. Thus there would be no actus reus and no need to look at dishonesty at all. Section.2 relates to mens rea, not actus reus. So, a belief that you could not trace the owner by taking reasonable steps would be sufficient. You do not actually have to take reasonable steps to find the owner. The Ghosh Test The courts have developed a test for dishonesty. It comes from the case Ghosh (1982).

Ghosh (1982) A surgeon claimed fees for operations he had not performed. The question was whether the prosecution had proved that he had acted dishonestly. The Court of Appeal laid down a new test.

In this test, there are two questions for the jury: Was the defendants act dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? (Objective)

If not, the test stops here, however, if so, the second questions is asked: Did the defendant realise the act would be regarded as dishonest by such people? (Subjective)

If the jury can answer yes to both parts, then the defendant is dishonest.

Does the Ghosh test make thing clear for a jury? Is it too wide? In this sort of case where the defendant claims fees for operations he has not performed, the question is probably not a difficult one for the jury to answer. Might a jury decide on moral rather than legal grounds? The Court of Appeal noted the lack of clarity in the law and attempted to put it right in Ghosh. It is by no means certain that they have done so. The second part of the rest is only partly subjective. It is what the defendant thinks ordinary people would regard as dishonest. So, it isnt only a hard question for the jury to answer, the test is complicated in itself. Intention to permanently deprive s.6(1) Section 6(1) provides this will exist where the defendants intention is to treat the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights. It will also exist where property is borrowed for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. This means that it is not usually theft if you mean to return the item. In Lloyd (1985) the Court of Appeal held s.6 would apply if the defendant used something so that all the goodness or virtue is gone. On the facts this was not the case, so there was no liability. The narrow interpretation of s.6 has been seen as rather too generous to the defendant. Lavender (1994) Defendant took some doors from his flat, which belonged to the council. He hung them in his girlfriends flat which belonged to the same council. Arguably he hadnt intended to permanently deprive the council of the doors as he merely moved them around. The court held that the defendant had treated the doors as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights.

Lloyd (1985) The defendant borrowed some films from the cinema where he worked and copied them.

The broader approach is seen in Lavender and Marshall. In Marshall the Court of Appeal held that acquiring underground tickets from travellers and then selling them was within the scope of s.6. The defendants had treated the tickets as their own to dispose of regardless of London Undergrounds rights.

Summary

Actus Reus
Appropriates s.3 Even if with owners consent Property s.4 Money and all other property Belonging to another s.5

Mens Rea
Dishonesty s.2 Intent to permanently deprive s.6 Can include borrowing

Include those S.2 + Ghosh with possession Test or control

Robbery
Type of Crime Robbery Explanation Robbery is essentially a type of aggravated theft. Section 8 of The Theft Act 1968 makes it a more serious offence if the defendant uses force (or the Cases

threat of force) in order to steal. This act provides: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force It is in an indictable offence and carries a maximum life sentence. If we look at the actus reus first: Steals A major point in the actus reus of Robbery is if there is no theft then there can be no robbery. This is shown in Robinson (1977). Immediately before or at the time of doing so The use (or threat) of force must be before or during the theft. This seems to suggest that the use of force once the appropriation has taken place would not be enough to make it robbery. This is shown in Hale (1979). In this case the Court of Appeal declined to quash their convictions for robbery even though the appropriation may have already taken place. The appropriation was seen as a continuing act. The case of Lockley (1995) the court confirmed the point in the case of Hale (1979). In order to do so We can see that the appropriation may continue while

Actus Reus (Robbery)

Robinson (1977) The defendant threatened the victim with a knife in order to get money he was owed. He believed he had a legal right to the money. Hake (1979) The defendants entered the victims house and one went upstairs and stole some items from a jewellery box, and the other was downstairs tying up the victim.

the defendant is removing the goods from the premises. If force is used, or threatened, this may amount to robbery. However, the force or threat of force must be in order to steal. This means it must be applied with the purpose of facilitating the theft. If the jury are satisfied that a defendant stole something, yet the force of threat of it was not applied in order to steal and they cannot to convict under Section 8. Uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear The word force is not separately defined in the Act. In Dawson and James (1978) the Court of Appeal said that it was just an ordinary word it was for the jury to determine its meaning. You cannot commit theft without taking something. In Gomez it was said that taking something from a supermarket shelf was appropriation. If done honestly it could be theft even though you havent left the shop; if done with force it can be robbery. Being then and there subjected to force This means that it must be a threat of immediate force. As with the immediately before or at the time element there is no set time limit. It will be a matter for the jury to decide. Robbery requires that a theft to take place, then this means that the prosecution need to prove the mens rea for theft. As regards the robbery itself, accidentally using force

Mens Rea (Robbery)

or causing fear in a victim is unlikely to be robbery. Robbery requires force in order to steal and accidentally using force would not meet this requirement. The force or threat of it must be intentional or reckless.

Summary

Actus Steals Actus

Uses force or puts someone in fear immediately before or at the time

As for

Dishonest

Intent to permanent ly deprive

S.2 defences may apply

Burglary
Type of Crime Burglary Explanation There are several ways to commit burglary. These come under the Theft Act 1968 s.9(1) which has two subsections: Under s.9(1) Theft Act 1968 a person is guilty of burglary if: (a) He enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as it is mentioned, shown below: (b) Having entered 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 or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. Much of the Actus Reus is the same for burglary under both (a) and (b). They differ only in the secondary offences known as the ulterior offences. Under (a) these is theft, grievous bodily harm, rape or criminal damage. Defendant will be guilty without actually doing any of these four things. It is enough that the intention to do so is there. In (b) the defendant must commit or attempt either theft or grievous bodily harm, but neednt have intend to do so at the time of entry. Cases

Actus Reus (Burglary)

Common element include: Enters Both types of burglary require entry as a trespasser. This included entry by any part of the defendants body or even an instrument used to remove property. In Collins (1972), the courts held that entry had to be both effective and substantial. In this case the Defendants opinion was quashed because the jury had not been properly directed. The Court of Appeal held that the jury must be satisfied that entry was both effective and substantial. The judge said that it was not enough that there was trespass at civil law. The defendant had to have known, or at least been reckless, as to the fact, that he was trespassing. The Court of Appeal again considered the issue of entry, in Ryan (1996) where the defendant had only his arm an head through a window. Unfortunately for him he got stuck and had to get the fire brigade to rescue him. Again, the defendants appeal was based on that entry was not proved. Building or part of a building S.9 refers to part of a building. This means you may have permission to be in a building-and so not to be a trespasser-but not to be in a particular part of it. If you enter that part you will be entering part of a building as a trespasser.

Collins (1972) Defendant had a few drinks. He climbed a ladder to a girls bedroom and saw her lying naked in bed. He descended, took off his clothes, claimed the ladder again and sat on her window sill. She awoke and saw him. The girl had also been drinking and mistook him for her boyfriend. They had sex, but then she realised that it wasnt him. She slapped him and told him to get out. He was charged under burglary under s.9(1)(a). This means that the prosecution had to prove he entered as a trespasser with intent to rape. He argued he was outside when the girl asked him in, so he was not a trespasser.

As a trespasser Trespass is going somewhere without, or in excess of, permission. Defendant must be a trespasser at the time of entry. A person can have permission to be in one part of a building, but will be seen as a trespasser in another part. Although permission will usually mean there is no trespass it may still be burglary if the defendant goes beyond that permission. In R v Jones and Smith (1976) he had gone beyond the permission granted when he stole the television. As he entered with this in mind he had entered as a trespasser. Both types of burglary require entry as a trespasser. Trespass is a civil law concept but for the criminal law it requires mens rea. This is intent or subjective recklessness. You have mens rea if you knew or recognised the possibility that you were entering without, or in excess of, permission. This was confirmed in Collins (1972) Once it is proved that the defendant entered a building )or part of one) as a trespasser, the actus reus and mens rea for the ulterior offence(s) must be considered. (a) For this, only mens rea is needed. Mens Rea must exist at time of entry (b) For this, the defendant must do or attempt one of the two things, (actus reus or mens rea) but neednt have intended to do so when entering. R v Jones and Smith (1976) Defendant had left home but had permission to enter his fathers house whenever he liked. He came one day with a friend and stole the television. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction for burglary.

Mens Rea (Burglary)

Actus Reus and Mens Rea for Ulterior Offences