Law 04 Robbery

S3(1) Theft Act 1968 - Defined as 'any assumption of the rights of an owner'

Pitham and Hehl - Includes the right to sell as a right of owner, doesnt matter if its actually sold the offer still counts

Morris - The assumption can be of any of the rights of an owner, it doesnt need to be all the rights 

Corcoran v Anderton - Explains that even forcibly tugging a handbag can be an assumption of the rights of an owner 

Morris - Switching lables is an adverse interfernce with the owners rights but was chnaged  by Gomez House of Lords said there doesnt need to be an adverse interefernce for an assumption to occur 

Lawrence - Even if the owner consents there can still be an appropriation 

Hinks - Confrimed that appropriation can occur when consent eg a gift given 

S3(1) - Property inncoently found and treated like an owner can be appropriation 

S4(1) of Theft Act - Defined property as 'money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property'

S.4(2) - Real property is land, this can be stolen in 3 ways: 1) By a trustee in breach of their duty, 2) By taking something from the land, 3) By ta tenant taking a structure from the land 

Kelly and Lindsay - Personal property is a material item, body parts are property if they are treated 

-Things in action can only be enforced by a court action, eg cheques, trademarks, tickets for a right of enterance 

AG of Hong Kong v Chan Nai - Keung - Intangible property includes lyrics and bank balances, eg a quota being stolen 

Oxford v Moss - Questions on an exam paper were not propety 

S.4(3) - Wild mushrroms and plants are not property unless used for 'reward, sale or other commercial purpose' 

S.4(4) - Excludes wild creatures from being property unless they have been tamed or kept in captivity

S5(1) of Theft Act 1968 - Defined belonging to another as 'any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propriety right or interest'

Turner - D canb steal their own property if it is under someone elses control and they have legal interest in it 

Woodman - It is possible to control or possess property without knowing the property is there, though they had control of it 

S.5(3) - Situations where there is an obligation to deal with property in a certain way 

Davidge v Burnett - Theft occured when money that was given to pay bills was used to buy Christmas presents instead 

Klienburg and Marsden 

Hall - There was no obligation to deal with property a certain way and there was no theft 

Wain - Someone receving charitable donations is under an obligation to provide the relevant amount to the charity 

S.5(4) - Property recived by mistake

Corcoran v Anderton - Snatching a bag is suffcient force and even though the bag was dropped there was a completed theft 

Dawson and James - Push was considered enough to be force 

Clouden - Wrenching a shopping basket from someones hand is force 

B and R v DPP - Pushing and holding someones arms can be force 

P v DPP - Snatching a cigarette from someone without touching them is not committing force on a person 

The force can be on any person 

The force must be used immediatly before or at the time of the theft in order to steal 

Hale - A householder being tied up after the appropriation of property can still be at the time of the theft seen as a continuing act 

Lockley - When force was used to excape from a shop after stealing 

Vinall - If the force is not used to steal then the force is not suffcient for a robbery 

Pagett - Supports the 'But For' test 

White - Against the 'But For' test 

Smith - If the defendant is the overwhelming cause the ar ethe legal cause 

Cheshire - Poor medical treatment will not normally break the chain of causation if X made a significant contribution to the death 

Malcherek - Turning off life support will not break caustion 

Roberts - A foreseeable intervening act will not break th echain of caustion 

Williams - An unreasonable act will break the chain of caustion 

Cato - If a defendant supplies/injects a drug there is no break of caustion 

Kennedy - Self-injection of a drug does break the chain of caustion 

Blaue - A paricular weakness will not break the chain of caustion (Thin Skull rule) 

S2 of Theft Act 1968 - Defines what behaviour is dishonest 

S.2(1)(a) - D believes he has the right in law to the property for self or 3rd person there is no dishonesty supported by Small and  Robinson 

S2(1)(b) - D beleived the owner would consent 

S2(1)(c) - If owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps then D will not be dishonest 

Gosh Test - 1) Was D dishonest as per the ordinary standards of a reasonable and honest person? and 2) Did D realise the act would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable people?

S2(2) - Willingness to pay can still mean dishonesty 

S6 Theft Act 1968 - 'Inention to treat the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights'

Velumyl - Took money from employers safe with intention to return it but Court of Appeal said it was enough as the property was disposed of as his own 

Lavender - Treated property as his own 

Lloyd - Borrowing is the same as disposing however borrowing didnt destory the goodness and virture 

Mohan - States intention is the decision to bring about the state of affairs 

Cunningham - Subjective recklessness is when the defendant recgonises the risk but goes ahead anyway 

Fagan - AR before MR (Contuning act) 

Thabo Meli - MR before AR (Series of events)