1. Law - Offences

2. Theft “ A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it” – S1(1) Theft Act 1968 1.Appropriation (S3(1)) – An interference with the rights of the owner 1.Property (S4(1)) – can be real/personal/thing in action – never abandoned property (Woodman, 1974) 1.Belonging to another (S5(1)) – S5(3) – received for a particular purpose S5(4) – received by another’s mistake 1.Dishonesty – S2(1) A – If D honestly believed he had a right to take the property B – If D honestly believed V would have consented C - If D took reasonable steps in tracking down the owner OR Ghosh (1982) – 1. Were D’s actions dishonest by the standards of a reasonable person? 2. Did D realise his actions were dishonest by the standards of a reasonable person? 5. ITPD – S6(1) – If D returned it, but the taking amounted to an ‘outright taking, where D treated himself as the owner or returned it as a thing of no value’

3. Making Off Without Payment “ A person who, knowing that payment on the spot is required or expected for any goods supplied or services provided, makes off without having paid as required, with intent of avoiding payment permanently is guilty” – S3(1) Theft Act 1978 Allen (1989) 1.Payment on the spot was required 2.Payment on the spot was required 3.D knew payment on the spot was required or expected 4.Dishonesty 5.Intent to avoid payment permanently * D MUST LEAVE THE PREMISES – McDovett (1961)*

4. Robbery “D is guilty if he steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, uses force on any person or seeks to put anybody in fear of being there and then subjected to violence” - S8(1) Theft Act 1968 1.Steals 2.Force – QOFJ (Dawson + James, 1998) 3.In order to steal – Includes escape (Lockley, 1995) 4.On any person 5.MR of theft + intention to use force

5. Burglary “D is guilty if he enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to cause any offence in S9(2)” - S9(1)(A) Theft Act 1968 “D is guilty if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal, or he inflicts GBH or attempts to inflict GBH on any person therein” – S 9(1)(B) Theft Act 1968 1.Enters – must be effective (Brown, 1985) 2.Building or part of a building – a permanent erection with a roof 3.Trespasser – wasn’t given, or in excess of, consent S9(1)(A) – intends to steal, commit GBH or cause CD S 9 (1) (B) – intends to steal/cause GBH inside the building *S10 – aggravated burglary*

6. Fraud by False Representation “ A person who makes a false representation and intends by doing so to cause a gain for himself or a loss to another, or expose another to the risk of a loss, is guilty” –S2 Fraud Act 2006 1.False Representation – S2(3) – as to fact/law/state of mind + can be expressed or implied S2(5) – can be made to a machine 2.False – White Paper; ‘Not wholly true and capable of being detrimental to V’ 3.Dishonesty – Ghosh (1982) 4.Intend to make a gain for himself or loss to another 5.D must know or believe – that his rep. was false

7. Fraud (obtaining services dishonestly) “ A person who obtains services by a) a dishonest act and b) breaching S11(2) is guilty” – S11(1) Fraud Act 2006 S11(2) – D is guilty if he obtains services; a) on the basis that payment will be/has been made b) he obtains them without payment being made in full c) knowing that payment will not be made in full 1.Obtains – must actually be obtained 2.Services – not defined in the Act 3.Not paid for – in full (if he obtains a services he shouldn’t have gotten but pays in full, he isn’t guilty) 4.Dishonesty – Ghosh (1982) 5.Intention not to pay – if he believes somebody else paid, he is not guilty

8. Criminal Damage “A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property belonging to another, either intending or being reckless as to the destruction of such property, is guilty” – S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 1.Damages – must be perceivable can depend on how easy it is to remove (R v A) 2.Property – Real/Personal 3. Belonging to another – Co-owner may be guilty (Smith, 1974) 4. Without lawful excuse – S5(2)a – if D believes V would have consented S5(2)b – if D believed property was in immediate need of protection + Intention or recklessness – Recklessness – A knowing disregard of an appreciated and unacceptable risk (G+R, 2003)

9. Aggravated Damage “A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property whether belonging to himself or another, intending or being reckless as to endangering life and intending or being reckless as to causing damage, is guilty” – S1(2) CDA 1971 1.Destroys or damages 2.Property 3.Belonging to another 4.Without lawful excuse 5.Intending/reckless as to causing damage + intending/reckless as to endangering life *DESTROYING PROPERTY BY FIRE = ARSON (S1(3))*

10. Blackmail “A person who, with a view to gain or cause or a loss, makes an unwarranted demand with menaces, is guilty” – S21 Theft Act 1968 1.Demand 2.With menaces – ‘anything detrimental or unpleasant’ 3.Unwarranted – a demand is unwarranted UNLESS a) D believed he had reasonable ground for making the demand b) use of menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand 4.View to gain or cause loss – doesn’t have to succeed

11. Intoxication A defence if it prevents D from forming the intention (Beard) Voluntary Intox. – a partial defence to crimes of specific intent (Majewski, 1971) Involuntary – a total defence to all crimes (Kingston, 1995) Then identify the elements of the mens rea that this applies to

12. Duress By threats – where a third party threatens D to carry out an offence By circumstances – where D feels compelled to carry out the offence Graham (1982) – 1. Did D honestly and reasonably believe that X would carry out the threat? 2. Would a reasonable person have succumbed to the threat? Bowen (1996) – R.P. modified on – age, sex, pregnancy, mental illness, serious physical disability Will fail if there was a safe avenue of escape (Abdul-Hussein, 1999) Must be a present and imminent threat (Abdul-Hussein,1999) Self induced duress – Hasan (2005), two principles; 1.Would an RP have foreseen the risk? 2.Was there a risk that D would have been subjected to violence?