Theft

Defined under s.1 Theft Act 1968 as:

  • Dishonestly (s.2)
  • Appropriates (s.3)
  • Property (s.4)
  • Belonging to another (s.5)
  • With intention to permanently deprive (s.6)

Actus Reus

Appropriation (s.3)

“Any assumption of the rights of an owner can amount to be an assumption”

Lawrence; Morris; Gomez; Hinks; Atakpu

Property (s.4)

“Property includes money and all other property whether real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”

Real Property

Land and things forming part of land and severed from it but only in certain circumstances

Personal Property

Any item other than real property that can be possessed

R v Kelly & Lindsay; Oxford v Moss

Belonging to another (s.5)

“Property shall be regarded as belonging to another person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propriety right or interest”

“Where a person receives property from another or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds belong to another”

“Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or part) of the property or its proceeds .... Then the property or proceeds shall be regarded as belonging to the (other) person”

R v Turner; DPP v Lavender; Hall; Wain; Webster; Williams v Phillips; R v Rostron

Dishonestly (s.2)

2 (1) (a) belief that he has the right in law to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a third person R v Holden

2 (1) (b) beliefs that he would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it

2 (1) (c) belief that the person whom the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps R v Small

The Ghosh Test

  1. Was what was done by D dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honestly people?
  2. Did realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?

Intention to permanently deprive (s.6)

  1. “a person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat as his own dispose of regardless of the other rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.”

Velumyl; DPP v Lavender; Marshall and others; Downes; Bagshaw; Lloyd; Easom

Robbery

Robbery is an aggravated form of theft and so requires proof of all the elements of theft and the additional elements that make up robbery

Defined under s.8 Theft Act 1968

“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 seeks to put them in fear of being then and there subjected to force.”

Robbery is an indictable offence

Actus Reus

  • The defendant must have committed theft
  • Used (or threatened) force on another person
  • Immediately before or at the time of stealing
  • And for the purposes of stealing (in order to steal – rather than for another purpose)

Mens Rea

  • Robbery requires the mens rea for theft and in addition
  • That the defendant intentionally or recklessly used or threatened to use force

Actus Reus

The defendant must have committed theft

  • Robbery can’t be committed if there has been no theft Robinson
  • it is not necessary for the theft to have been successful provided the property has been appropriated Corcoran v Anderton

Used (or threatened) force on another person

Join now!
  • The word “force” is an ordinary word and it is for the jury to decide what constitutes force. This issue was raised in Dawson. The force used does not have to be directed against the person – it could be against property Clouden – even the retching of a bag was enough.
  • A threat of force must be a threat of then and there subjecting the victim (or someone else) to force. A threat of future violence is not sufficient. There is no need for the victim to be frightened or even be aware of the threat.
...

This is a preview of the whole essay