Law 04 AQA

  • Created by: Joe
  • Created on: 03-06-14 09:14

Theft (s1 Theft act 1968)

A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intent to permenetly deprive that other of it  Theft act 1968

Appropriation- Assuming rights of ownership, doing only what the owner has the right to do- Pilgrim v Rice Smith, Monoghan. Can be through fraud or consent- Gomez and Hinks. Bone fide- no appropration (Adams). Coming across innocently- any later assumption is enough- Stahlam. Mcpherson/ Eddy v Niman contrast and Cocoron v Anderton 

Property- Includes Money and all other property, real or personal including things in action and other intangible property. Not animals unless reduced into possesion or plants unless for commercial gain. Land must be severed or trustee. Not body parts- Kelly v Lindsay or oxford v Moss 

Belonging to another- possesion or control- woodman, property right- turner, by anohters mistake- failure to make restoration- AG 1983. Rostor v Collinson Williams v Phillips. 5 (3)- obligation- Wain, Meech/ Hall (exact money). 

Dishonest- Ghosh tests (Dishonest by reasonble man + D knows this) r v small or beleif (holden) that a right in law, consent, owner not traceable by reasonable steps. Robinson.2 (2)- willing to pay 

Intent to permenetly deprive- Treat as own, keep it, depriving it of all value (Lloyd). Lavender, Velumyl 

1 of 11

Burglary s9 Theft act 1968

9 1(a) Enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage therin 

9 1 (b) Having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal or commits or attempts to commit GBH

Entry- Must be effective (Ryan)

Building- a fairly permement structure shown with wheels in Seekings and Gould/ Leatherly or part of a building- Walkington

As a trespasser- Exceeding consent- Jones & Smith and Recklass to doing so- Collins

2 of 11

Robbery (s8 Theft act 1968)

If he steals and immeidatly before or at the time of doing so and in order to do so he uses force or puts or seeks to put another person of being then and there subjected to force 

Steal- Robinson and Forrester- all parts of theft must be proven 

Force- Slight force enough (mason) or a nudge (Dawson & James)

Threat of force- Bentham, Taylor, B and R

At the time of doing so or before and in order to steal- Hale/Lockley- continuing act 

No need to get away- Cocoron v Anderton 

3 of 11

Obtaining Services Dishonestly (s11 Fraud act 2006

Must Obtain a Service that was made on the basis of payment 

Having not paid or not paid in full 

Must be dishonest 

Must know payment made on the basis of payment 

Yet intends not to pay (in full) r v allen 

4 of 11

Fraud by false representation (s2 Fraud act 2006)

Makes a representation which is false- untrue or misleading and D knows may be untrue or misleading- Rai/Charles. Implied in Rashid or Barnard 

with a view to gain or loss


5 of 11

Making off without payment (s3 theft act 1978)

Must make off- McDavitt (leaving the scene)

Payment must be expected or required on the spot- was not expected in Troughton but was in Aziz in which journey completed 

D must know payment expected- Brooks and Brooks 

Must be dishonest

With a view to permenetly avoid payment- Allen

6 of 11

Blackmail (s21 theft act 1968)

An Unwarranted demand with Menaces with a view to make a gain or cause a loss 

- Demand is unwarranted unless D does so in the beleif that he has reasonable grounds for makind demand and the proper means for reinforcing the demand-Harvey (too trivial). Demand can be expressed or implied- Collister v Warwurst, made when sent- Treacy 

- Menaces- Clear suggests interfer with ordinary mind of ordinary stability, although Garwood showes if D knows is Timid- taken into account. Harry- not enough 

with a view to gain or loss- Bevans

7 of 11

Criminal Damage (Criminal Damage act 1971)

Simple Criminal damage- Intentionally or recklaslly destroys or damages property belonging to another. 

Destroys or damages- Morphitis v Salmon (obiter car scratch) Hardman (cost of hose) Property and must belong to another. MR to do so (smith) R v G- recklasnass

Defences- beleif they would have owners consent- Denton and Appelyard- permission to do so- owner/ managing director. Beleif that property was in need of immeidate protection- Hill

Aggrevated Criminal damage- intentionally or recklassaly destorys or damages property with an intent or recklassnass as to whether life would thereby be endagered. Merrick 

Sangha- OPB would forsee a risk of death. Must be by the damaged caused- steer, webster/warwick. 

arson- Miller 

8 of 11

Intoxication (defence)

Voluntary- Specific intent- in his intoxicated state, did he form the required MR? (Lipman 

Basic- Majewski- Lord Elweyn Jones- recklass course of conduct- no defence 

Intoxicated Mistake- Would he have made the same mistake when sober? O grady / Fotheringham 


Specifc- Drugged intent is still an intent- Kingston 

Basic- Recklass in taking of the drug? Bailee (medication protocol) Hardie (Valium) Allen (stronger alchahol) 

9 of 11

Self Defence

Was Force Necessary (1) 

Was the level of force reasonable in the circumstances (2) 


Bird- Premeptive strike, Malnik- cant be the aggressor 

Criminal Justice and Immigration act- genuine beleif in Circumstances of D, Mistake- Williams 


Palmer- may not be able to weigh up the niceties of the situation, crim act- honest and institive beleif. Agony of the moment 

Exessive force is judged objectively- Owino as in Clegg and Martin and is not acceptable 

Circumstances of Martin likely not to be taken into account despite subjective focus 

10 of 11

Duress (Defence)

Duress by threat 

- must be specific (Cole) and to death or serious injury (Lynch) - Was d implled to act because he reasonably believed death or serious injury would follow. Wright- can be towards someone else

 - would a sober person of reasonble firmness also react in such a way. Bowen principles apply- sex, age, disability, mental issue, pregnancy, disability 

Duress of Circumstance- 

- Shalyer criteria- reasonable and Proportionate, to avoid the greater evil (re a, cichon) , to someone they feel responsbile for (willer)

Grahman criteria- impelled to act reasonble beleived death or serious injury would result/ sober person of reasonable firmness. Bowen principles apply 

General Considerations 

- Imminent- Abdul Hussian, avenue of escape- Gill/ Hudson,Taylor, Self induced- Sharp/ Shepard 

11 of 11


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »