Law Unit 4

Theft

S(1) Theft Act 1968 - 'dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive them of it'

AR 1 - APPROPRIATION: s(3) TA -  assuming the rights of the owner (Morris: switching labels) (Lawrence: taxi fare)

AR 2 - PROPERTY: s(4) TA - Property is anything real or tangible. Anything that can be owned (Oxford v Moss confidential papers don't count)

AR 3 - BELONGING TO ANOTHER: s(5) TA - Property belongs to someone if they have either possession or control over it. (Turner: Garage temporarily owned his car)

MR 1 - DISHONESTY: s(2) TA - Ghosh test 1982: 1. Would D's behaviour be regarded dishonest by reasonable people? 2. Was the D aware of this?

MR 2 - INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE: s(6) TA - Disposing property regardless of the others rights. (Marshal: disposed property) (DPP v Jones: Took headphones then returned them broken, the element is sufficed)

Robbery

S(8) Theft Act 1968 - 'stealing, and immediately before OR at the time of doing so uses force on any person or puts/seeks to put anyone into fear'.

AR 1, 2, 3 - Same as theft (appropriation, property, belonging to another)

AR 4 - USE OF FORCE OR PUT SOMEONE INTO FEAR: (Dawson v James: 'force should take its ordinary meaning then jury will decide liability) (Clouden 1987: D 'wrenched basket into V before stealing)

AR 5 - IMMEDIATE: Must take place before or after stealing. (Hale 1978: Jewelry box, tied up V)

MR 1, 2 - Same as theft

Burglary

S(9) Theft Act 1968 - 'enter as a trespasser with intention to commit offences' Intention can be formed before or after entry has been made

AR 1 - ENTERS: effective entry must be made. (Collins: effective entry was made) (Brown: leaning in shop window was sufficient)

AR 2 - BUILDING OR PART OF A BUILDING: must be of permanent structure (Norfold v Gould: lorries don't count as they're used for storage)

AR 3 - AS A TRESPASSER: Entering a building without the permission or right to do so (Walkington: there was no permission)

MR 1 - KNOWLEDGE OR RECKLESSNESS AS TO ENTERING AS A TRESPASSER: (Cunningham: D knew there's a risk and was reckless to take it anyways) 

MR 2 - INTENTION TO COMMIT GBH, THEFT OR CRIMINAL DAMAGE.

Basic criminal damage

S(1) Criminal damage act 1971

AR 1 - DESTROY OR DAMAGE: Damage can be temporary or permanent. (Hardman v Chief constable of Avon: Damage from chalk is temporary, but still amounts to damage) (Morphitis v Salmon: no criminal damage as the value or usefulness wasn't reduced)

AR 2 - PROPERTY: s(10) CDA: tangible nature, including money.

AR 3 - BELONGING TO ANOTHER: s(10) CDA: Custody and control is required

AR 4 - WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE: s(5) CDA: shouldn't be genuine belief in consent (Jaggard v Dickinson: concerns question of consent)

MR 1 - INTENTION TO DESTROY/DAMAGE PROPERTY OR RECKLESSNESS AS TO WHETHER SUCH PROPERTY IS DESTROYED: (Cunningham: recklessness)

Aggravated criminal damage

S(1) Criminal damage act 1971

AR 1, 2, 3, 4: SAME AS BASIC CRIMINAL DAMAGE

MR 1 - SAME AS BASIC CRIMINAL DAMAGE 

MR 2 - INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY ENDANGER LIFE BY DAMAGE: (Steer: shooting caused danger but not damage, no offence)

Arson

S(1) Criminal damage act 1971: destroy or damage property by fire

AR - ALL THE SAME AS BASIC CRIMINAL DAMAGE

MR - ALL THE SAME AS BASIC CRIMINAL DAMAGE

BUT...

DAMAGE NEEDS TO BE CAUSED BY FIRE FOR IT TO AMOUNT TO ARSON!

Fraud by false representation

AR 1 - MAKE A FALSE REPRESENTATION: s(2): defines false as 'untrue or misleading'. Representation can express or implied. Express: Written/posted/spoken (Silverman: express represetation). Implied: (Lambie: credit card)

MR 1 - DISHONESTY: Ghosh test: 1. Was D acting reasonable? 2. Was D aware their conduct was un-reasonable?

MR 2 - KNOWING THAT THE REPRESENTATION IS UNTRUE/MISLEADING

MR 3 - INTENTION TO MAKE A GAIN FOR HIMSELF OR CAUSE SOMEONE A LOSS: (Parkes: D didn't have legal right to make a gain)

Obtaining services dishonestly

S(11) Fraud act 2006

AR 1 - OBTAIN: Service needs to be obtained for self or another

AR 2 - SERVICES: A service is based on the knowledge that payment is required. (R v Sofroniou)

AR 3 - NOT PAID FOR OR NOT PAID IN FULL

MR 2 - OBTAINING SERVICES DISHONESTLY: s(11) obtains sevices dishonestly for himself or another

MR 3 - DISHONESTY: Ghosh test: Would the D's conduct be regarded dishonest by a reasonable person? Was D aware that their conduct would be regarded dishonest?

MR 4 - KNOWLEDGE OF SERVICE REQUIRING PAYMENT: Knowing that money is required for the service provided.

MR 5 - AVOIDS PAYMENT IN FULL OR PART:  Intention not to pay must exist at the time of obtaing the service. (Allen: Intention not to pay means intent not to pay permanently)

Making off without payment

S(3) Theft act 1978 - ' Knowledge that payment is required on the spot and dishonestly avoiding to do so'

AR 1 - GOODS SUPPLIED OR SERVICES DONE: Goods  or service must be delivered to D, (Allen: hotel room service)

AR 2 - MAKING OFF FROM THE SPOT: The departure must be dishonest. (McDavitt: 'spot' is a place where payment should be made) (Vincent there was no offence)

MR 1- DISHONEST: Ghosh test: Was D's conduct regarded dishonest? Was D aware of this?

MR 2 - KNOWS THAT PAYMENT IS REQUIRED ON THE SPOT: If payment is no longer required, then D wouldnt be commintting an offence (Vincentt 2001)

MR 3 - INTENTION TO AVOID PAYMENT PERMANENTLY: There must be intention to NEVER pay the sum. 

Intoxication

- Can be either voluntary or involuntary. But can only be used as a defence where it's involuntary without mens rea.

- Voluntary intoxication makes D guilty (Majewski: voluntary intoxication isn't a defence) (Allen: Intoxication is still voluntary even where D doesn't know the strength of a drug/drink)

- Involuntary intoxication doesn't make D guilty (Hardie: Voluntary consumption of dangerous drugs may be reckless, but this isn't the same as non dangerous) (Kingston: intoxicated intent is still intent) 

Duress by threat

- Duress: threat, violence, any action used to make someone do something against their will

- Graham test: Was D impelled to act as he did because he feared serious consequence? If so, did he respond as a reasonable being?

Elements to consider:

- NATURE OF THREAT - test: 'feared death or serious physical injury'. (Hasan: threats can be to family members) 

- THREAT MUST BE IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFENCE COMMITTED - (Cole: There was no threat)

- CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT - 2nd part of Graham test. (Bowen: established the following characteristics: age, sex, health, disability etc...)

- IMMEDIACY OF THREAT AND POSSIBLE ESCAPE - (Hudson and Taylor: Possible escape was to call the police) (Gill: D had time to call the police, therefore the defence fails)

- SELF-INDUCED DURESS - Placing self in dangerous situations. (Sharp)

Duress of circumstance

- D believes that he, or those with him would suffer suffer death/serious injury if he didn't commit the unlawful act. (Martin: sets out the legal test for duress of circumstance)

- Martin: Duress needs to arise from objective dangers. Graham test: Was D impelled to act as he did due to fear of death or serious injury? If so, would a sober poerson act in the same way?

Elements to consider:

- OBJECTIVE NATURE OF THREAT:  Reasonable man of the same characteristics must see the threat (Bowen)

- REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONATE ACTION:  (Cowen: Behaviour of defendant must be proportionate)

- NATURE OF THREAT: Graham test:  Was D impelled to act because be feared death or serious injury? If so, would a sober person act in the same way? (Rodger and Rose: defence failed as circumstances causing the action was internal to themselves) 

- LIMITS TO THE DEFENCE: (Pommell: Jury decides  whether D was honest or not)

Self defence

S(3) Criminal law act 1963 - 'A person can use force which is reasonable in the prevention of crime'

NECESSITY OF FORCE: (Gladstone Williams: Defence is based on what D genuinely believed was happening) (Bird: D doesn't have to wait to be attacked to use force, as long as it's reasonable)

REASONABLENESS OF FORCE: (Palmer: Jury decies what is reasonable force besed on the circumstance) Excessive force is unlawful (Clegg)

Blackmail

S(21) Theft Act 1968: 'making an unwarranted demand with menace with a view to making a gain or causing a loss'

AR 1 - DEMAND: a demand can be express/implied. (R v Collister: tests whether a person's actions amount to a demand; attitude of D, evidence, circumstance and reasonable being) (Treacy v DPP: Demand was made by sending a letter). The demand must be unwarrented (D must not be leggaly entitles to make the demand)

AR 2 - MENACE: defined in (Thorne v Motor trade association): 'threats of violence or anything unpleasant to the person. The action must be intended. (Garwood: D is liable even where D knows V is very timid) (Harry: no menace)

MR 1 - INTENTION TO MAKE DEMAND WITH MENACE

MR 2 -  GAIN FOR SELF OR CAUSE A LOSS TO OTHERS: (Bevans: gain or loss needs to be of economic value)