Offences under the Theft Act 1968 Theft Background

Offences under the Theft Act 1968

Theft

Background • Statutory offence – Theft Act 1968 – “the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive”

Elements to the offence Actus Reus • Appropriation • Property • Belonging to another Mens Rea • Dishonestly • Intention to permanently deprive

Actus Reus #1 - Appropriation • Defined under section 3 as “the assumption of [any of (Morris)] the rights of an owner” – Lawrence (1971) • “there may be appropriation even though the owner has given permission to property being taken” – Gomez (1993) • “if D deceives v into handing over property then D appropriates the property of another” – Hinks (2000) • “did D realise that ordinary and honest people would regard the actions as being dishonest

Actus Reus #1 - Appropriation • Pitham and Hehl (1971) – D sold furniture belonging to another without removing it from the property • Atakpu and Abrahams (1994) – Property cannot be appropriated twice provided it has been in continuous possession

Actus reus #2 Property • Money – Notes and coins • Real – Land cannot be stolen – 3 exceptions 1. Trustees 2. Tenants- guilty for stealing structures 3. Person out of possession

Actus reus #2 Property • Personal – Kelly & Lindsay 1998 – body parts – Other personal belongings • Things in action – personal right of property which is enforceable by legal action – Chan man-Sin V A-G for Hong Kong (1988)

Actus reus #2 Property • Other intangible property – Something that's not a thing in action but is still personal property – E. g. • Patent • Quota (Chan Nai-Kang (1987)) – But not; • Electricity – Low v Blease (1975) • Phone calls • Information- Oxford V Moss

Actus reus #2 Property • Things that cannot be stolen – Anything that grows, unless its for sale – Wild creatures • tamed/animals in captivity can be stolen • Wild creatures cannot

Actus reus #3 belonging to another [1] Possession or control • Own property – Turner (1971) • Garage was in possession of his car thus turner was guilty of theft • Unaware of possession – Woodman (1974) • Company were in control of the site when D took the scrap

Actus reus #3 belonging to another [2] Possession or control • Property received under obligation – Hall (1972) • • Not guilty No property belonging to another Notes & coins passed to D Customer did not expect D to use those particular notes and coins to pay for the flights – Kleinberg and Marsden • guilty • At time of theft there was clear obligation to deal with money in certain way – Where D’s obligation is to use money in a certain way property still belongs to v – thus it is theft – Where d has a mere contractual obligation unrelated to the money in question property is now D’s- thus it is not theft

Actus reus #3 belonging to another [3] Possession or control • Property obtained by mistake – A-G ref #1 (1983) • If D is under obligation to make restoration and if there was a dishonest intention not to make restoration, then all elements of theft are present – Gilks (1972) • Obligation to restore has to be legal

Actus reus #3 belonging to another [4] proprietary interest • D usually steals from the ‘true owner’ • Can be legal/equitable • Webster 2006 – Iraq vet received duplicate medal by mistake – Then sold it on EBAY – Convicted as MOD had an equitable interest in the medal

Mens Rea #1 Dishonesty • Three circumstances where D is not honest S 2 (1) (a-c) • One circumstance in which D may be dishonest S 2 (2)

Mens Rea #1: Dishonesty; circumstances where D is not honest 1. Claim of right – D will not be dishonest if he genuinely believed he had a legal right to the property – Belief need not be reasonable, provided it is genuine – Halden (1991)

Mens Rea #1: Dishonesty; circumstances where D is not honest 2. Belief that the owner would have consented – D not dishonest where he genuinely believed the owner would have consented to the appropriation – If d believed the owner actually consented it would be a claim of right – D must believe that the owner would have consented not; • • Ought to have May have

Mens Rea #1: Dishonesty; circumstances where D is not honest 3. Belief property was lost – Appropriation of lost property completes ar – D not dishonest if he genuinely believed that the true owner was discoverable through reasonable steps – Small • Jury should be directed to consider 1. 2. Whether according to the standards of r&h people what D did was dishonest Whether D realised what he was doing was dishonest beyond the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people

Mens Rea #1: Dishonesty; where D may be dishonest Ghosh Test – Lord Justice Lane 1. Was D’s act dishonest according to the standards of the reasonable and honest person? If so 2. Did D realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the act as being dishonest?

Mens Rea #2 Intention to permanently deprive • Section 6 Theft Act 1968 – 6. 1 - to dispose of [or deal with] – 6. 2 -Regardless of the others rights • Borrowing – Was P deprived of • Interest • Value – When property is on hire, and P doesn't use it because of D then they are permanently deprived of their ‘interest’ in the property – Borrowing is not theft unless it is for a period/in circumstances making it equivalent to disposal – Lloyd (1985)

Mens Rea #2 Intention to permanently deprive [2] • Velmuyl (1989) • Co. A upheld conviction for theft as he had intention to permanently deprive the notes he had taken even if he later replaced them later • Lavender (1994) – Divisional council held that Q was whether or not D intended to treat the doors as his own regardless of the right of the council

Mens Rea #2 Intention to permanently deprive [3] Conditional intent • Easom (1971) – Lord Scarman • “In every case of theft the appropriation must be accompanied by the intention of permanently depriving the owner of his property” • D potentially liable under – S 1 Criminal attempts Act (CAA 1981) • At Gen Ref (1&2) – If D has conditional intent, then D could be charged with an attempt to steal

Robbery

Background • Statutory offence – section 8 Theft Act 1968 Actus reus Mens rea A theft Theft Using/ threat of force in order to steal Intent to use force

AR #2 - Force • Robbery when D uses or seeks to use force or threatens force during theft • Force in order to steal – Application of force – Put in fear of force – Seek to put in fear of force – Implied threat B&R v DPP (2007) Immediate = then and there Bentham (2005)

AR #2 - Force Timing of force • Hale (1979) – LJ Eveleigh; theft is ongoing as long as the intention to permanently deprive is still occurring appropriation and therefore a continuous act • Lockley (1995) – Confirmed Hale

AR #2 - Force Degree of force • Can be small Dawson v Jones (1976) – Force is a question of fact for the Jury

AR #2 - Force Target of Force • does not need to be v of theft • Can applied to an object – Clouden (1987)

Mens rea 1. Same as theft 2. Intent to use force in order to steal

Burglary

Background • Statutory offence – Theft Act 1968 section 9 (1) (a and b) Section 9 (1) (a) Section 9 (1) (b) Enters Same as A -1, 2 &3 - Building/part of Theft As a trespasser Inflict GBH

Actus Reus #1; Entry Questions of fact Collins (1972) – Jury has to satisfy that D made an “effective and substantial entry” Brown (1985) – Substantial does not help the jury, on effective does Ryan (1996) – A body part constitutes entry and is irrelevant as to whether or not he was capable of stealing – Whether or not D could commit the offence is irrelevant

Actus Reus #2; a building • Question of fact for a jury • Theft Act 1968 – “inhabited vehicle or vessel” accounted for B and S v Leatherley (1979) – 25 ft long freezer container on sleepers held as a building Norfolk constabulary v Seekings and Gauld (1986) – Container on wheels used for storage held not a building

Actus Reus #2; part of a building Walkington (1979) – While he entered with permission, he exceeded said permission when he entered the counter as a trespasser with the intention of stealing

Actus Reus #3; as a trespasser 3 questions 1. Was trespass for the purpose of burglary – Must be voluntary – Collins • No conviction unless D enters knowing he is trespassing or at least reckless as to entering 2. Did d have permission? – Only those in possession can grant permission 3. Was the limits of permission exceeded – Jones and Smith (1976) • D knowingly exceeded position given to him by his father

Mens rea 9 (1) (a) I. Knows or foresees the risk that he may be trespassing II. D intends to commit one of the three ulterior offences • • Theft GBH Criminal damage Burglary is complete when D enters with intent – ulterior offence not needed

Mens rea 9 (1) (b) I. Knows or foresees the risk that entry was as a trespasser II. D possess the mens rea of one of the three ulterior offences • • • Theft GBH attempt

Blackmail

Background • Statutory Definition; Theft Act 1968 section 21 • “A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces, and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief; 1. That he has reasonable grounds for making the demand 2. That use the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand” Actus Reus unwarranted demand Made with menaces Mens Rea intent to make unwarranted demands with menaces With a view (intention) to gain or cause loss

Actus Reus #1 - Demand • Demand must be made and can be in any form – Words, conduct etc… • It can be made explicitly to the victim as in Collister and Warhurst (1955) – "The demeanour of the accused and the circumstances of the case were such that an ordinary reasonable man would understand that a demand for money was being made upon him". • Making the demand is actus reus, once made the ar is complete

Actus Reus #1 - Demand • Demand need not be received by the victim • Where demand is sent via the post, demand is made at time of posting • Treacy DPP (1971) – Ho. L held D can be guilty of blackmail in England as it was where the letter was posted.

Actus Reus #2 - unwarranted • Section 21 says that any demand made with menaces is unwarranted unless d fulfils two tests laid out in s. 21 (1) – He had reasonable grounds for making the demand – The use of menaces was a proper means for reinforcing the demand • Both tests focus on d’s belief and thus provide a subjective element to what is an unwarranted demand. • If d thought he has reasonable grounds for making the demand that the use of menaces was the way to reinforce the demand then he is not guilty of blackmail

Actus Reus #2 - unwarranted • Harvey (1981) – Court of appeal stated that it was necessary for them to show that • They believed they had reasonable grounds for making the demand • Use of menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand • Harvey shows that D must believe both that he had reasonable grounds for making the demand that the use of menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand • 2 tests mean that although D has a genuine claim he can still be guilty of blackmail if he does not believe that the use of menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand

Actus Reus #3 – Menaces • demand must be made with menaces • Menaces is held to mean serious threat • Lawrence and pomroy (1971) – Held that the word menace was a ordinary English word • In clear (1968) – ‘must be of such nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive by it so to unwillingly accede it’ • Victim does not to be proven to be intimidated

Actus Reus #3 – Menaces • Harry 1974 – Judge pointed out that a group of shopkeepers did not feel threatened and therefore ruled that the definition in clear that blackmail was not proved as the lack of threat could not influence or make them apprehensive so as to unwillingly accede the demand • Garwood 1974 – Co. A “where a threat is made which would not affect a normal person; this can still be menace if D was aware of the likely effect on the victim

Mens Rea #1 - With a view (intention) to gain or cause loss • Interpreted by section 34 (2) (a) defines ‘gain’ and ‘loss’ – Can be temporary or permanent a) Gain: keeping what one has, gaining what one has not b) Loss: losing what one has, not getting what one might get • Gain or loss does not need to be permanent but it can be temporary • Where D does not succeed in making the gain or causing the intended loss then he is guilty of blackmail

Mens Rea #1 - With a view (intention) to gain or cause loss • Bevans (1988) – D suffered from osteoarthritis, pointed a gun at his Dr demanding morphine – The Dr gave him the injection – Held; the morphine was property and also it was gain for the patient and loss for the Dr

Key Facts Element Demand Explanation Can be by any method Can be implicit if demand is posted it is effective at the moment of posting Cases Unwarranted Not unwarranted under s. 21(1) if D believed; A), he had reasonable grounds for the demand B), menaces used were proper so to reinforce demand Harvey (1981) With menaces Ordinary English word, which jury is expected to understand Must be of such nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person and courage might be Influenced or made apprehensive by it so to unwillingly accede it’ Lawrence and pomroy (1971) Clear (1968) Harry (1974) gain or loss Intention must be to make a gain/ cause loss of money/property Does not need to actually happen Bevans (1988) Collister (1955) Treacy (1971) Blackmail