AQA law unit 4: Theft act 1986 (Theft and Robbery)

David N. Flaherty
Mind Map by David N. Flaherty, updated more than 1 year ago
David N. Flaherty
Created by David N. Flaherty almost 5 years ago
70
3

Description

Please read: This is Part 1 of the two Theft act Mind maps I have created, which is based on Unit 4 from the AQA exam board. If you do OCR Law, this may not be of use ( or maybe it is...). This mind map contains information for theft and robbery including the actus reus and mens rea for of them, as well as many cases from the AQA textbook for A2 law. Some cases would contain information, whilst other do not, and I apologize for this. If there are any needed corrections, feel free to say.
Tags

Resource summary

AQA law unit 4: Theft act 1986 (Theft and Robbery)
1 Section 1: Theft
1.1 A Person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intent to permanently depriving the other of it
1.1.1 Actus Reus
1.1.1.1 Section 3: Appropriation
1.1.1.1.1 Assuming the rights by a person of the owner amounts to appropriation
1.1.1.1.1.1 Useful cases:
1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Pitham and Hehl (1977)
1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Morris (1983)
1.1.1.1.1.1.3 Lawrence (1971)
1.1.1.1.1.1.4 Gomez (1993)
1.1.1.1.1.1.5 Hinks (2000)
1.1.1.2 Section 4: Property
1.1.1.2.1 "This includes Money and all other property including real or personal property, things in action and other intangible property"
1.1.1.2.1.1 Personal property: Your personal property e.g your phone, your comupter, but also inlcudes stuff such as cars
1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Kelly and Lindsay (1998): It was held that body parts were property, as they were acquired 'different attributes by virtue of application of skill such as dissection or preservation techniques, for exhibition or teaching purposes.
1.1.1.2.1.2 Real property: Refers to land and buildings. Under S4 (1), land can be stolen but this can be dine under circumstances includuing: 1. A trustee or personal representative takes land in breach of his duties as a trustee or personal representative, 2 Someone not in possesionof the land devers anything forming part of the land from the land and 3. A tenant takes a fixture or structure fro the land let to him.
1.1.1.2.1.3 Other intangible property: Includes other rights lacking any physical presence.
1.1.1.2.1.3.1 A-G of Hong Kong V Chan Nai-Keung(1987) Export quota is seen as intangible property
1.1.1.2.1.3.2 Oxford V Moss(1979): Knowledge of Exam questions on an Examination paper was held not to be property
1.1.1.2.1.4 Things that can't be stolen includes: Wild mushrooms or foliage (unless used for commercial purposes e.g Selling them) and electricity
1.1.1.3 Section 5: Belonging to another
1.1.1.3.1 Any person having possestion or in control of that property
1.1.1.3.1.1 Useful cases:
1.1.1.3.1.1.1 Turner (No 2) (1971): Stealing your own car, which is under repair by someone else, can be considered as theft.
1.1.1.3.1.1.2 Woodman (1974): Taking any leftover scraps of metal can be seen as theft
1.1.1.3.1.1.3 Klineberg and Marsden (1999)
1.1.1.3.1.1.4 Wain (1995)
1.1.1.3.1.1.5 Davidge V Bunnet (1984): The defendant was guilty of theft as she was given money that should be used to pay the gas bill but was used to buy her Christmas presents
1.1.1.3.1.1.6 A-G's Reference (No 1 of 1983) (1985): The Defendant was under obligation to make restoration
1.1.1.3.1.1.7 Hall (1972)
1.1.1.3.1.2 Trust Property, where a Trustee can steal it
1.1.1.3.1.3 Property received under an Obligation
1.1.1.3.1.4 Property received by another's mistake
1.1.2 Mens Rea
1.1.2.1 Section 2: Dishonesty
1.1.2.1.1 The defendant is not Dishonest, if he believes that he had right in law, would have the other's consent and/or the owner can't be found
1.1.2.1.1.1 Robinson: (1977) Because that the defendnant had a right to take the £5,he was not being dishonest.
1.1.2.1.2 In order to prove dishonesty, the Ghosh test is set out to to see if the person is dishonest, via both objective and subjective.
1.1.2.1.2.1 Ghosh (1982): The doctor claimed fees for operations that he did not carry out, and has stated that the amount was equal of his consultation fees
1.1.2.1.2.2 1. Was the defendant being dishonest according to the ordinary standards of a reasonable and honest person?
1.1.2.1.2.2.1 2. Was the Defendant aware that he was being dishonest by those standards?
1.1.2.1.2.3 Feely (1973)
1.1.2.2 Section 6: With the Intention to permanently deprive the other of it.
1.1.2.2.1 Requires intention
1.1.2.2.2 The defendant must threat the property as if it was his own
1.1.2.2.2.1 Lloyd (1985) The goodness or practical value must have gone from the proerty
1.1.2.2.2.2 Rapheal and another(2008) Offering to sell the porerty back to the owner is seen as treating the property as his own
1.1.2.2.2.3 Useful cases
1.1.2.2.2.3.1 Velumyl (1989)
1.1.2.2.2.3.2 DPP v Lavender (1994)
1.1.2.2.2.3.3 Easom (1971)
2 Section 8: Robbery
2.1 A person is guilty of Robbery of he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or put or seeks to putany person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
2.1.1 Mens Rea
2.1.1.1 The mens rea for theft (Dishonesty and intention to deprive permanently)
2.1.1.2 The intention to use force to steal
2.1.2 Actus Reus
2.1.2.1 Completed Theft
2.1.2.1.1 All of the elements of theft must be intact for a person to be liable for robbery, which are included in Section 1 of the theft act
2.1.2.1.1.1 Theft can be seen as a continuing act
2.1.2.2 The use of force or the use of threat of force
2.1.2.2.1 Useful cases
2.1.2.2.1.1 Dawson and James (1976) Pushing the victim can be seen as force
2.1.2.2.1.2 Clouden (1987) D was guilty of robbery as he used force to wrench a shopping basket to the user's hand
2.1.2.2.1.3 B and R v DPP (2007) The defendants, despite the victim being in shock, were still guilty of theft of his £5 his watch, travel card and his phone. The defendants only pushed him and held his arms.
2.1.2.2.1.4 Hale (1979): Force was being used on the victim, as one defendant put his hand over her mouth to stop the victim from screaming, and the other defendant to raid the house and steal a jewellery box, then tied her up on a chair.
2.1.2.2.1.5 Lockley (1995)
2.1.2.2.2 The force can be small, and does not have to actually frighten the victim, showing that the use of force is only to be shown and can amount to robbery
2.1.2.2.3 The force must be used before or at the time of the theft
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

Functionalist Theory of Crime
A M
Realist Theories
A M
Carbohydrates
Jubby
AQA A2 Biology Unit 4: Populations
Charlotte Lloyd
AQA Physics: A2 Unit 4
Michael Priest
Control, Punishment & Victims
A M
Coloured Compounds (AQA A2 Chemistry)
Filip Lastovka
Ethnicity, Crime & Justice
A M
Gender, Crime & Justice
A M
A-Level Law: Theft
amyclare96
The Weimar Republic, 1919-1929
shann.w