Flashcards
Offences Against Property
Cards in this deck (50)
- 1Theft- S.1 THEFT ACT 1968
- Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it - 2Theft Appropriation- S.3
- Appropriation = Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner. D only has to assume one of the owner's rights : MORRIS - 3Theft Property- S.4(1)
- Property = Includes money + all other property, real or personal, including things in action + other tangible property - 4Theft Belonging to another- S.5(1)
- Belonging to another = any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right/interest - 5Theft Dishonestly- No definition. HOWEVER 1968 Act gives 3 situations which are not dishonest. Where D appropriates property in belief that:
i) He has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a 3rd person : S.2(1)(a)
ii) He would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation + circumstances of it : S.2(1)(b)
iii) Person to whom property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps : S.2(1)(c)
- If S.2 doesn't apply, then GHOSH test used:
I) Was Ds act dishonest by ordinary standards of reasonable + honest people? If so, jury must consider 2nd question
ii) Did D realise his act would be recognised as dishonest by those standards? - 6Theft Intention to permanently deprive- Will be satisfied if picks up property + has change of mind + puts in back : VELUMYL
- Also if D did not mean to lose property permanently but D intends to treat it as its own to dispose of regardless of others rights : S.8 - 7Robbery- S.8 THEFT ACT 1968
- Steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, uses force on any person or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force - 8Robbery AR- All AR elements of theft must be present
- Force can be small : DAWSON & JAMES
- D puts any person in fear of force where V apprehends that force might be used if he/she resists handing over property
- Force must be used/threatened immediately before or at time of theft. HOWEVER, appropriation can be a continuing act. Up to jury to decide when stopped : HALE - 9Robbery MR- MR of theft must be proven. If D not committed theft, cannot be convicted of robbery, even if force used to deprive V of property : ROBINSON
- D must intend to use force or threaten force on any person in order to steal. No need for V to be in fear or apprehend it
: B AND R v DPP - 10Burglary S.9 (1) (a) THEFT ACT 1968- Enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to:
i) Steal
ii) Inflict GBH
iii) Do unlawful damage to building or anything in it - 11Burglary S.9 (1) (b) THEFT ACT 1968Having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser and:
i) Steals
ii) Inflicts GBH - 12Burglary- Entry decided by jury/magistrates : RYAN
- Building = Structure of considerable size + intend to be fairly permanent
: STEVENS v GOURLEY
- Trespasser = Voluntary enters without permission of occupier
- D must know/be reckless as to whether they are trespassing : COLLINS
- Must stays MR for offence (Theft/GBH/Criminal Damage) - 13Blackmail- S.21THEFT ACT 1968
- With a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces - 14Blackmail Demand- Demand = Spoken/conduct/writing. Doesn't need to be made explicitly to V
: COLLISTER AND WARHURST
V need not hear/receive demand
: TREACY v DPP - 15Blackmail Demand made with menaces unwarranted unless:i) Had reasonable grounds for making demand; AND
ii) Use of menaces proper way of reinforcing demand
- Jury need to be satisfied that D believed both of these: HARVEY, ULYETT AND PLUMMER - 16Blackmail Unwarranted demand must be made with menaces-- Covers threats of violence to persons/damage property/ make damaging allegations against V (truthful or not)
- Not necessary to show V actually affected by threat to a timid person, + knows effect it will have then demand made with menaces even if normal person not likely affected : GARWOOD - 17Blackmail MR- When making threat, D must have acted:
i) With a view to gain for himself or another; OR
ii) With intent to cause loss to another
- S.34(2)(a) THEFT ACT 1968 held that:
i) Intended gain/loss must be property
ii) Can be temporary
iii) Gain not limited to D making a profit : LAWRENCE & POMROY
iv) Loss included a loss by V not getting what she might get - 18Fraud by False Representation- S.2(1) FRAUD ACT 2006
- Committed when D:
1)Dishonestly makes a false representation AND
2) Intends, by making this representation:
i) Make a gain for himself or another
ii) Cause loss to another or expose another to risk of loss - 19Fraud by False Representation S.2 (3)- Representation can be:
i) As to fact (e.g. false identity)
ii) As to law (e.g. untrue statement about legal effect of a document)
ii) As to state of mind of individual (e.g. saying that will pay but no intent to) - 20Fraud by False Representation S.2 (4)- Representation can be expressed or implied
- Express = can be written/spoken/posted on website
- Implied = through conduct
(LAMBIE - paying on credit card with no money on it implied had banks authority to use it)
(DPP v RAY - Ordering + eating meal in restaurant, representation that it will be paid for) - 21Fraud by False Representation S.2 (5)- Representation can be made to a person or to any system where no human involvement (e.g. entering pin into card machine)
- 22Fraud by False Representation S.2 (2)- False Representation is untrue or misleading
- 23Fraud by False Representation MR- Prosecution must prove D is:
i) Dishonest AND
ii) Knows/ believes representation is untrue/misleading AND
iii) Have intention to make gain or cause loss or expose another to risk of loss - 24Obtaining Services Dishonestly- S.11 FRAUD ACT 2006
- Offence if:
i) D does dishonest act resulting in obtaining services for D or another
ii) For which payment is required
iii) AND D fails to pay full price for services
iv) AND D knows services are to be paid for or might have to be paid for
v) AND intends to avoid payment in whole or part - 25Obtaining Services Dishonestly AR- Services - Not defined. But only applies to services for which payment required (e.g. using false bus pass)
- Only has to obtain dishonestly. Not necessary to show he has deceived anyone
- Offence only committed if D doesn't pay - 26Obtaining Services Dishonestly MR- Prosecution must prove whether D:
i) Dishonest (using GHOSH test)
ii) Knew service had to/ might have to be paid for
iii) Intended to avoid payment in whole or part for the services (If believed someone else paid, not guilty) - 27Making off without payment- S.3 THEFT ACT 1968
- Person who, knowing that payment on spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected +with intent to avoid payment of the amount shall be guilty - 28Making off without payment AR- D makes off when leaves spot/place where payment required
- Must not have paid on spot as required/expected from him:
• Payment must be of amount due
• Payment must be due : VINCENT
- Goods must be supplied/service done
• Service must be done/completed (TROUGHTON v MPC- service not done as took D to police station. not home)
• Under S.3 (3) THEFT ACT 1978 - goods supplied/service done must be lawful, otherwise not legally enforced. So no offence committed. - 29Making off without payment MR- D must make off:
i) Dishonestly
ii) Knowing payment required/expected on spot
iii) Intent to avoid payment
i) GHOSH test used
ii) If doesn't know then not committed offence. If payment on spot not required then D can't know this : VINCENT
iii) ALLEN: Held that D must have no intention of ever paying - 30Criminal Damage- S.1 (1) CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971
- Person, who without lawful excuse, destroys/ damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy/damage any such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty - 31Criminal Damage AR- What amounts to destruction/damage is a matter of fact + degree. Magistrates/jury decides, applying common sense
: ROE v KINGERLEE
- Destroy = Where property has been made useless
- Damage = Can be slight + temporary but must be physically altered, harmed or impaired
: GAYFORD v CHOULER (trampled grass)
- Likely to be criminal damage if money/time/effort required to remove damage. And unfit for use (temporarily) : FIAK (blocked toilet to flood cell) - 32Criminal Damage MRi) If Ds conduct was intended by D to cause destruction/damage of property which belonged to another
ii) Ds conduct was reckless as to causing destruction
iii) Destruction/damage of property must be without lawful excuse - 33Criminal Damage MR i)- Not enough that D intends to do the act which cause the damage. Must intend to cause the damage itself (e.g. PEMBILTON - proof that he intended to throw stone, no proof that he intended to break window)
- D will lack MR if damages/destroys Vs property under mistake believe that its his own : SMITH - 34Criminal Damage MR ii)- Reckless is subjective in its meaning. Can only be guilty if realised risk and took it
: G & R - 35Criminal Damage MR iii)- S.5 1971 ACT - 2 lawful excuses available. Apply when D honestly believes either that:
i) Owner would have consented to the destruction/damage : S.5 (2) (a)
ii) Other property was at risk + in need of immediate protection + what he did was reasonable in all circumstances : S.5 (2) (b)
- Doesn't matter whether belief justified or not, provided it was honestly held : JAGGARD v DICKINSON
- Must damage property for purpose of protecting other property that he believed needed immediate protection. If D has another purpose for damaging property then defence not available : HUNT
- Must be property (S.5 (2) (b)) cannot cause criminal damage if not in law considered property : CRESSWELL AND CURRIE v DPP (Not protecting property by destroying booby traps as badgers not property)
- No defence provided if D believes he is acting to protect person from harm : BAKER AND WILKINS (damaged door as believed daughter was being held in house) - 36Aggravated Criminal Damage- S.1 (2) CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971
- Person, without lawful excuse, destroys any property, whether belonging to himself or another:
i) Intending to dressy/damage any property or being reckless
ii) Intending by the destruction/damage to endanger life of other or being reckless - 37Aggravated Criminal Damage AR- Destruction/Damage can be to own property as long as life intended/recklessly endangered
- 'Lawful excuse' doesn't apply
- Danger to life must be caused by damage/destruction, not merely by Ds act
: STEER (danger came from shooting, not by damage to house)
- Life doesn't actually have to be endangered : PARKER (reckless when set fire to house, didn't matter neighbours absent) - 38Aggravated Criminal Damage MRD must have:
i) Intention/recklessness as to destroying/damaging any property; AND
ii) Intention/reckless as to whether life of another is endangered by destruction/damage - 39Arson- S.1 (3) CRIMINAL DAMAGE 1971
- Destroying/Damaging property by fire
- Must have committed basic offence of criminal damage but with fire
- Arson can be committed by act/omission if D was under duty to act : MILLER (didn't put out smouldering mattress, just moved to other room to sleep)
- Lawful excuse can be used : DENTON (thought employer encouraged him to set mill on fire, honestly believed owner consented to destruction) - 40DEFENCE: Intoxication- General defence. D acquitted if succeeds
- Whether D can use defence depends on:
i) voluntary/involuntary intoxication
ii) Basic/Specific intent crime
- Voluntary = D chosen to take intoxicating substance. Also when D knows effect of prescribed drug will make D intoxicated
- Involuntary = D didn't't know he was taking intoxicating substance
- Distinction between specific/basic intent crimes made in DPP v MAJEWSKI
- Specific = requires intention
- Basic = requires recklessness
- Where D voluntary intoxicated, D has defence to specific intent crime if MR negated : SHEEHAN & MOORE
- Where D has MR, no defence : GALLAGHER
- Basic intent - if voluntary intoxicated D seen as being reckless in becoming intoxicated : DPP v MAJEWSKI
- Involuntary intoxication no defence if D has MR, even if D wouldnt have committed the offence w/o intoxication lowering his resistance to committing the offence : KINGSTON - 41DEFENCE: Self-defence- S.3 CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1967
- Private defence = Right to use force in defence of oneself/property/another against an unjustifiable attack
- Public defence = Right to use force in public interest to prevent crime or lawfully arrest someone
- 2 points must be decided:
i) Was force necessary? If yes then:
ii) Was the amount of force reasonable in circumstances? - 42DEFENCE: Self-defence i) Was force necessary?- D must have an honest belief that the circumstances are such that use of force necessary
- D not under duty to retreat if faced with threat from another. Possibility to retreat just a relevant factor to determine whether force necessary : S.76 (6A) CRIMINAL AND JUSTICE AND IMMIGRATION ACT 2008
- Unlikely force necessary if chase attacker : HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER
- D doesn't have to wait to be attacked before he can use force to defend himself
- I genuinely made mistake about being threatening or needing to act to prevent crime, then judged on facts as he believed them to be. Even if mistake unreasonable : S.76(3) CJIA 2008. Confirms WILLIAMS (GLADSTONE)
- Mistaken belief by Ds voluntary intoxication, not sufficient : S.76(5) CJIA 2008. Confirms O'GRADY - 43DEFENCE: Self-defence ii) Was the amount of force reasonable in circumstances?- Must be that a reasonable person would have used the amount of force in the circumstances as D believed them to be
- Degree of force used not reasonable if disproportionate in circumstances : S.76(6) CJIA 2008
- In householder cases, degree of force used not reasonable if grossly disproportionate in circumstances : S.76(5A) CJIA 2008
- D may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exit measure of any necessary action : S.76(7)(a) CJIA 2008
- In deciding whether degree of force reasonable, court must ignore psychiatric conditions that might cause D to perceive much greater danger the average man : MARTIN - 44DEFENCE: Duress- Where D committed offence because he had been threatened with death/serious injury. D has excuse as effectively forced t commit crime
- If D told to commit offence 'or else' then duress by threats
- Elements of duress by threats: (Accoring to HoL in HASAN)
i) Must be a threat of death or serious injury : GRAHAM
ii) Threat must be made to D/immediate family/someone else close to
iii) Must have reasonable belief that he had a good cause to fear death/serious injury
iv) Response must be one which might be expected of a sober person of reasonable firmness
v) Must be no reasonable opportunity to escape threat
vi) D cannot rely on threats to which he has voluntarily laid himself open - 45DEFENCE: Duress of threats i)- Threat to cause psychiatric injury could amount to duress : BAKER v WILKINS
- 46DEFENCE: Duress of threats ii)- WRIGHT: Threats against Ds boyfriend sufficed
- HASAN: person for whom D would reasonably regard himself responsible for (covered all those who would be injured by bomb) can include strangers - 47DEFENCE: Duress of threats iii/iv)- BOWEN: held that when deciding if D reacted 'reasonably' they could take into account following characteristics:
i) Ds age/sex
ii) D pregnant?
iii) D had physical disability?
iv) D had recognised mental illness?
- Low IQ not taken into account as doesn't affect Ds ability to resist threat - 48DEFENCE: Duress of threats v)- Defence not available where D had reasonable opportunity to contact police/escape : GILL (threatened to steal lorry. left alone period of time)
- If threat withdrawn or becomes ineffective, D must stop committing crime as soon as he reasonably can
- Threat doesn't need to be carried out immediately, as long as its effective when D performs crime : HASAN - 49DEFENCE: Duress of threats vi)- HASAN: If D voluntarily associates himself with criminals, cannot usually get defence, if due to threats of violence by those criminals
- 50DEFENCE: Duress of Circumstances- Where D forced to commit crime because he reasonably believes risk of death of GBH arising from circumstances, not because of threat to commit a specific offence.
- Only reasonable way of avoiding death/GBH by committing offence.
- Same principles apply to duress of circumstances as to duress by threats
Information
- Description
- A level Law (Offences Against Property) Flashcards on Offences Against Property, created by Millie Rodgers on 01/05/2017.
- Created by
- Millie Rodgers
- Views
- 11
- Rating