1. Offences under the Theft Act 1968

2. Theft

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

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

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Mens Rea #1 Dishonesty Three circumstances where D is not honest S2 (1) (a-c) One circumstance in which D may be dishonest S2 (2)

16. 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)

17. 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

18. 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.Whether according to the standards of r&h people what D did was dishonest 2.Whether D realised what he was doing was dishonest beyond the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people

19. 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?

20. 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)

21. Mens Rea #2 Intention to permanently deprive [2] Velmuyl (1989) CoA 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

22. 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 – S1 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

23. Robbery

24. Background Statutory offence – section 8 Theft Act 1968 Actus reusMens rea A theftTheft Using/ threat of force in order to steal Intent to use force

25. 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)

26. 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

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

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

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

30. Burglary

31. Background Statutory offence – Theft Act 1968 section 9 (1) (a and b) Section 9 (1) (a)Section 9 (1) (b) EntersSame as A -1,2 &3- Building/part ofTheft As a trespasserInflict GBH

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. Blackmail

39. 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 ReusMens Rea unwarranted demand intent to make unwarranted demands with menaces Made with menacesWith a view (intention) to gain or cause loss

40. 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

41. 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) – HoL held D can be guilty of blackmail in England as it was where the letter was posted.

42. 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 and that the use of menaces was the way to reinforce the demand then he is not guilty of blackmail

43. 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 and 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

44. 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

45. 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 – CoA “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

46. 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

47. 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

48. ElementExplanationCases Demand Can be by any method Can be implicit if demand is posted it is effective at the moment of posting Collister (1955) Treacy (1971) 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 lossIntention must be to make a gain/ cause loss of money/property Does not need to actually happen Bevans (1988) Key Facts Blackmail