S1 Theft: a Person Is Guilty of Theft If He Dishonestly Appropriates Property Belonging

Law 04 – Criminal Law Summary

OFFENCES

S1 THEFT TA 1968: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
S3 Appropriation: Assume any rights of the owner, even right or interest.
S3(1): Includes any later assumption of rights.
No need to physically take: Pitham & Hehl
How many rights? Morris: Any right is enough as long as against the owners wishes
A can be consent by deception to assume the rights of an owner: Lawrence, Gomez
A can be proved even where the property is obtained through a gift: Hinks
Appropriation only happens at one point in time: Atakpu / S2: No definition of Dishonesty.
Not dishonest if believes:
S2(1)(a): has right in law to the property Holden
S2(1)(b): would have the other person’s consent
S2 (1)(c): owner cannot be found through reasonable steps. Small
S2(2): An appropriation may be dishonest even if they are willing to pay for it.
Ghosh test: 1 Would the defendant’s behaviour be regarded as dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people?
2 Was the defendant aware that his conduct would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people?
S4: Property includes money and all other property, real and personal.
S4(2) not land unless trust.
Not wild animals or plants unless for commercial use.
Information cannot be property and stolen: Oxford v Moss
R v Marshall: travel cards are property of issuer and not simply a right to travel.
Kelly: A body is not property but any body parts which have been skilfully dissected are property. / S6: ITPD Includes where the D does not mean the other to permanently lose the property but does intend to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the rights of the other DPP v Lavender.
A borrowing or lending of the item can amount to ITPD if it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal Lloyd
All goodness should be taken from property Bagshaw
tickets remain property of issuer so selling/giving to unauthorised user is a disposal Marshall
A disposal includes taking away any right over the property from the owner DPP v Jones
ITPD where the D doesn’t intend to return the exact same property – Velumyl
D can have an ITPD if he would have stolen anything have value, even though didn’t, conditional intent AG Ref (Nos 1 and 2 1979) 1979
S5 Belonging to another: Property belongs to another where the person either owns or has possession or control of the property
Can steal own property where another has control of it and a right over it Turner No2.
D may have legal right even though not physically possessed Webster
S5(2)Where property is subject to a trust the person to whom it belongs include any person having a right to enforce the trust. Wain.
S5(3) Where a person receives property from another and is under an obligation to deal with property in a particular way, the property shall be regarded as belonging to the other. Davidge v Bunnett
It must be a legal rather than a moral obligation DPP v Huskinson
S5(4) Where a person receives property by another’s mistake and is required to return the property or equivalent the property belongs to another. AG Ref (No1 of 1983) 1985
But no obligation to return if an unenforceable contract Gilks.
S8 ROBBERY TA 1968 if 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 puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
Force (AR) – Not defined in the act
A term the jury can easily decide on, jostling/Push & only has to be small. Dawson & James
Wrench enough – Clouden
No need for the force to be actually possible as long as V believes it will occur Bentham
Does not need to put a V in fear B & R v DPP / Force can be regarded as at the time of the theft as theft can be continuing until the D has made good their escape Hale, Lockley
Appropriation can be very brief Corcoran & Anderton
Force must be used to steal or no Robery Lockley / If no completed theft no robbery R v Robinson
Must be Intention (Direct Intent Mohan) or recklessness (subjective recklessness Cunningham) as to use or threat of force (MR).
S9 BURGLARY TA 1968: He enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and (a) with intent to commit any such ulterior offence or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm
Entry: Effective entry is a question of fact for jury Collins 1972
D does not even have to be able to steal Ryan
Effective entry can include any implements that are extensions of the body, eg fishing rod. / S9(3) Building includes inhabited vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to any such vehicle or vessel at times when the person having a habitation in it is not there as well as times when he is.
Structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least endure for considerable time Stevens v Gourley
As a Trespasser intentionally (Mohan) or recklessly (Cunningham): Where D enters a building without legal permission, express or implied, to do so.
Where D enters a part of the building he has no right to go in this is a trespass Walkington
A person who is given permission to enter for one purpose but in fact enters for another purpose is entering as a trespasser Jones & Smith
If D goes beyond permission granted then a trespasser R v Barker / ITPD and ulterior offences:
S9 (1)(a) D can have an ITPD if he would have stolen anything have value, even though didn’t, conditional intent AG Ref (Nos 1 and 2 1979) 1979
S9(1)(b): D must commit or attempt to commit theft or grievous bodily harm.
S20 is sufficient for either type of burglary, i.e. intention or recklessness as to some harm (Mowatt)
S9(1)(a): Intent to commit on entry, Theft, CD or S20 / S9(1)(b): Intent to commit after entry Theft or S20 or attempt to do so.
S21 BLACKMAIL TA 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; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief –
a that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
b that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

Unwarranted demand express or implied (AR)

It will be implied when a jury (the reasonable man) can see from the attitude, actions and circumstances that the defendant is making a demand. Collister and Warhurst
A demand is made when the defendant has done all he can to communicate the demand Treacy v DPP /

Menaces (AR)

Any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the person addressed Thorne v Motor Trade Association
The effect of the demand must be that the reasonable person would be influenced or fearful so that the demand was likely to be met.
If the person to whom the threat is made is known by the defendant to be particularly timid, then threats which do not affect the reasonable person can still be taken as menaces Garwood
Specific intention to make a demand with menaces (Mohan or Woollin) (MR) / Doing so with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another (MR)
s34(2) gain or loss must be money or something monetary and can be temporary or permanent
The gain or loss must be of economic value Bevans
No need to show D actually made a gain as long as he had the intent to do this – it’s a conduct only crime.
Statutory defence: There is not demand with menaces if D has reasonable (but mistaken) grounds for making the demand And D believes (mistakenly) that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
The belief must be genuinely held and can be a moral rather than a legal belief, but a belief that would generally be viewed as immoral is no defence Harvey
If no completed theft no robbery R v Robinson
S3 MAKING OFF WITHOUT PAYMENT TA 1978: A person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
Goods supplied or Services done S3(1): Allen (1985), it was the provision of a hotel room
S3(3): the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable’. / S3(1) Dishonestly: No statutory honest situations. No definition in Act.
Ghosh Test.
Making off from the spot S3(1): Usually means the area controlled by the person to whom payment should be made.
Departure must be dishonest and doesn’t have to be running or illicitly leaving Brooks and Brooks (1983)
‘Making off’ refers to ‘a departure from the spot where payment is required or expected’. Where that spot is, is a matter for the jury to decide, depending on the circumstances. Here the defendant did not actually leave the spot, but merely attempted to do so McDavitt (1981)
Aziz (1993): journey by taxi payment on spot could either be outside or in the taxi and in this case men were in. It is enough that payment of the fare had arisen a particular location isn’t necessary.
Troughton V Met Police (1987): The journey was not completed and the taxi driver had breached the contract.The offence of "making off" requires the payment to be legally enforceable. Therefore, the taxi driver was unable to demand the fare after he had diverted from the proper route to D's destination. / S3(1) Fails to pay on the spot as required or expected: The idea that credit is not available is merely something that the defendant must know.
Vincent (2001), the bill was a reasonably substantial bill for hotels so agreement to pay allowed so did have honest belief payment wasn’t expected or required on spot.
More difficult to show an agreement had been reached to defer payment of a taxi fare, petrol at a filling station or for a meal in a restaurant. But possible.
Fails to pay on the spot as required or expected S3(1): key point is departure is made without paying as required or expected in situation.
In circumstances where an agreement is made a considerable time before payment would normally be expected, that agreement is capable of defeating the expectation of payment on the spot and so no offence of making off without payment is committed Vincent (2001).
Would be S2 Fraud Instead. / S3(1):Intention to avoid payment. The intent must be never to pay the sum involved. An honest belief that credit is being given will mean the offence is not being committed Allen (1985): Part payment will mean no offence committed.

S2 FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION 2006: A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading, And the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. S1: Fraud is defined as dishonestly making a false representation and D intends to make a false representation to make a gain for himself or cause loss to expose another to the risk of loss.

S2 Makes a false representation (AR): false means untrue or misleading, but the word ‘representation’ is not defined. Mis means false. Word ‘representation’ as a factual statement made by one party in order to induce another party to do something.
S3 representation can be as to fact or law. A statement of opinion will only be misrepresentation when D knows it to be untrue, eg borrow money from dad for law book but actually know using it for pub.
Where the representation was true when made, but later becomes false, the offence can be committed by not telling of the change or implying payment will be made later DPP v Ray (1974). D got a grant for mum off council but didn’t tell council mum died Rai (2000).
S4 A rep can be express or implied. Using a cheque knowing no funds in account MPC v Charles (1976) Or presentation of a credit card knowing payment beyond agreed credit limit R v Lambie (1982).
Explanatory notes:
S15: Rep can be made by implied conduct, e.g. by a gesture such as a nod and S16 “phishing’, getting a person financial details through false statements in e-mails.
S2 Dishonestly (MR) No statutory honest situations. No definition in Act.
Ghosh Test. / S2 (a) and (b) Knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading. (MR) Might be doesn’t mean reckless.
Actual knowledge that the rep may be untrue – Specific intent Mohan/Woollin
If the statement is actually true cant section cant be satisfied
S5: representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention), e.g. vending machine / S1: With intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss. (MR) No need for anyone to have suffered any actual loss or be exposed to any loss or even that the defendant makes a gain. P prove only D’s intent to do this. Even money lawfully owed but received early through false rep enough for gain Parkes (1973).
S11 OBTAINING SERVICES DISHONESTLY FRAUD ACT 2006: A person is guilty of an offence if he obtains services for himself or another by a dishonest act, and in breach of subsection (2). If they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them, he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and when he obtains them, he knows –