Law - Unit 4 - Blackmail

Blackmail (s.21 Theft Act 1968)

Actus Reus

• Unwarrented Demand (Collister and Warhurst 1955)(Treacy v DPP 1971)
• Menaces (Thorne v Motor Association 1937)(Garwood 1987)(Harry 1974)

Mens Rea

• Intention to make a demand with menaces
• Doing so with a view to gain for himself or another with intent to cause loss to another
  • s.34(2)(a) Theft Act 1968 (Bevans 1988)
    
• D's belief as to reasonable grounds for making the demand (Harvey 1981)

Burglary (s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968)

s.9(1)(a)

• Actus Reus
  • Enters (Collins 1973)(Brown 1985)(Ryan 1966)
  • Building or part of a building (Walkington 1979)
  • As a trespasser (Jones and Smith 1976)
• Mens Rea
  • Knowledge or Recklessness as to his entering as a trespasser (Cunningham 1957)
  • Intent to cause; theft (Morris 1983), GBH (R v Saunders) or damage to the building (Salmon 1990)

Burglary (s.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968)

s.9(1)(b)

• Actus Reus
  • Enters (Collins 1973)(Brown 1985)(Ryan 1966)
  • Building or part of a building (Walkington 1979)
  • As a trespasser (Jones and Smith 1976)
  • AR of Theft/GBH or attempted Theft/GBH (Morris 1983)(R v Saunders)
• Mens Rea
  • Knowledge or Recklessness as to his entering as a trespasser (Cunningham 1957)
  • Mens rea for Theft (Ghosh or Lavender v DPP) or GBH (R v Mowatt and R v Grimshaw)

Criminal Damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971)

• Basic - <10 years
• Aggravated - <14
• Arson - <life

Basic Offence of Criminal Damage (s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971)

• Actus Reus
  • Destroy or Damage (Hardman 1986)(Salmon 1990)
  • Property (s.10(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971)(Oxford v Moss)
    
  • Belonging to Another (DPP v Lavender)
  • Without Lawful Excuse
    • s.5(2)(a) CDA 1971 - Belief in consent/immediate necessity (Jaggard v Dickinson 1980)
    • s.5(2)(b) CDA 1971 - Belief is subjective (honest beleif) (Hill and Hall 1989)
• Mens Rea
  • Intention/recklessness to destroy or damage property belonging to another 

Aggravated Offence of Criminal Damage (s.1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971)

• Actus Reus
  • Destroy or Damage (Hardman 1986)(Salmon 1990)
  • Any Property (s.10(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971)(Oxford v Moss)
    
  • Belonging to himself or another (DPP v Lavender)
  • Without Lawful Excuse
    • s.5(2)(a) CDA 1971 - Belief in consent/immediate necessity (Jaggard v Dickinson 1980)
    • s.5(2)(b) CDA 1971 - Belief is subjective (honest beleif) (Hill and Hall 1989)
• Mens Rea
  • Intention by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless
    • Endangering life
      • Steer 1987
      • Warwick 1995
      • 'D knew that life might be endangered'

Arson (s.1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971)

• Actus Reus
  • With Fire
  • Destroy or Damage (Hardman 1986)(Salmon 1990)
  • Any Property (s.10(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971)(Oxford v Moss)
    
  • Belonging to himself or another (DPP v Lavender)
  • Without Lawful Excuse
    • s.5(2)(a) CDA 1971 - Belief in consent/immediate necessity (Jaggard v Dickinson 1980)
    • s.5(2)(b) CDA 1971 - Belief is subjective (honest beleif) (Hill and Hall 1989
• Mens Rea
  • Intention by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless
    • Endangering life
      • Steer 1987
      • Warwick 1995
      • 'D knew that life might be endangered'

Fraud - Making a false representation (s.2 Fraud Act 2006)

Actus Reus

• Making a false representation
  • Fraud by false representation s.2(5)
  • (Rai 2000)(Silverman 1987)(Barnard 1837)(MPC v Charles 1976)

Mens Rea

• Dishonesty (Ghosh test)
• Knowing representation was or might be untrue or misleading
  • Must know that ^
  • Doesnt mean recklessness
• With intent to make a gain for himself or cause loss
  • No one has to suffer any loss or for D to make any gain (Parkes 1973)

Fraud - Making off without payment (s.3 Theft Act 1978)

Actus Reus

• Goods supplied or services done (Troughton)
• Makes off from the spot (Brooks and Brooks 1983)
• Fails to pay on the spot as required or expected (Vincent 2001)

Mens Rea

• Dishonest (Ghosh test)
• Knows that the payment on the sport is required or expected (Vincent 2001)
• Inetion to avoid payment permanently (Allen)

Fraud - Obtaining Services Dishonestly (s.11 Fraud Act 2006)

Actus Reus

• Obtains services for himself or others (Greenburg 1972)
• Services (Sofronioun 2004) 

Mens Rea

• Dishonestly (Ghosh test)
• Knowing that the services are made avalaible on the basis of payment
• Avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part (Allen 1985)

Robbery (s.8 Theft Act 1968)

Actus Reus

• Aggravated form of theft (Theft + Force)
• What amounts to force or threat of force of a person (Dawson and James 1976)(Clouden 1987)
• When the threat of force has to take place (Hale 1978)(Corcoran and Anderton 1980)
  

Mens Rea

• Intention or recklessness as to the use of force

Theft (Theft Act 1968)

Actus Reus 

• Appropriates (s.3) - (Pitham and Hehl 1977)(Morris 1983)(Lawrence 1971)
• Property (s.4) - (R v Kelly 1998)(Oxford v Moss 1979)
• Belonging to another (s.5) - (Turner (No.2) 1971)(Webster)(R v Marshall 1998)(Woodman 1974)

Mens Rea

• Dishonestly (s.2) - (Ghosh)(Holden)(Robinson 1977)(Small 1987)
• Intention to permanently deprive (s.6) - (DPP v Lavender 1994)(Mitchell 2008)(Vinall 2011)

Involuntary Intoxication

• D couldnt form MR (Kingston 1994)
• Hardie 1985
• Doesn't know they have taken drink/drug
• Defence to crimes of basic and specific intent

Voluntary Intoxication

• Only a defence to crimes of specific intnet
• Basic intent allows recklessness so V.I isn't allowed
• Majewski 1977
• Not a defence to manslaughter (Lipman 1970)
• Dutch Courage (Gallagher)

Self Defence (s.3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Mistaken use of force in self-defence
• Genuine Mistake (Williams 1987)(s.76(3) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008)
• Drunken Mistake - can't use defence (s.76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008)
• Degree of Force - reasoable in circumstance (s.76(7) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008)

Duress by Threats (Howe 1987)

• Graham 1982 test
  • 1. Was the D impelled to act as he did becuase he feared death or serious physical injury
  • If so, did he respond as a sober person of resonable firmness sharing the characteristics of the D
• Nature of the threat (Baker and WIlliams 1997)(Martin 1989)(Valderrama Vega 1985)(Conway 1988)
• The threat must be made in connection with the offence committed (Cole 1994)
• The characteristics of the D - Objective (Bowen 1996)
• Effect of intoxication - only involuntary
• The immediacy of the threat and possible escape (Gill 1963)(Hudson and Taylor 1971)
• Self-induced distress (Sharp 1987)(Hasan 2005)

Duress by Circumstances

• D is claiming that he believes that he or those with him would suffer death or serious injury if he had not escaped by doing what he did
• Martin 1989
  • The objective nature of the threat 
  • Reasonable and proportionate action
  • The nature of the test
  • Limits to the defence
• The nature of the threat - objective (Willer 1986)
• Reasonable and proportionate action (Conway 1989)
• Nature of the threat test (Rodger and Rose 1997)(Cairns 1999)
  • Reasonably believed good reason for fear/death
  • Reasonable man act in the same way 
• Limits to the defence of duress - no murder application (Pommell 1996)