THEFT, ROBBERY AND BURGLARY

Theft Act 1968

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE CRIMES:

ROBBERY- THEFT + FORCEBURGLARY- THEFT + IN A BUILDING

Key elements

THEFT

Theft - Theft Act 1968 s(1)

Provides the definition for theft:

“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another

with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.”

Theft – the key elements

3 elements for Actus Reus: - Appropriation s(3)- Property s(4)(1-4)- Belonging to another s(5)(1+3+4)

2 elements for Mens Rea:- Dishonesty s(2)(1)- Intention to permanently deprive s(6)(1)

Appropriation

Defined in Theft Act 1968 s(3) as “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner”.

It was held in Morris (1984) that appropriation of goods includes a range of activities and it is not necessary that all the rights of an owner need to be assumed, only one right is needed.

Lawrence (1972) held that appropriation can occur even when property has been handed over with the consent of the owner. Gomez (1993) also found this.

Hinks (1998) held that appropriation can occur even when the property was given as a voluntary gift.

Property- s(4)(1)

Defined in Theft Act 1968 s4 in different subsections.

S4(1) gives a general statement surrounding property: “property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”.

Real property= land and buildings.Personal property= moveable items.Intangible property= does not exist in a physical

sense (copyright of trademarks).Things in action= a right enforced against another

person.

Property- s(4)(2)

S(4)(2) says explicitly when you are capable of stealing land (abbreviated):

(2)a= when is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by power of attorney… or a liquidator… or selling or disposing of land by dealing with it in breach of confidence… OR

>the land or rights being transferred are not his to transfer.(2)b= not in possession …and appropriates by… severing

it… OR>you can commit theft when the owner has not allowed the thief to possess the property. Severing= detaching.(2)c= when…under a tenancy…appropriates fixtures or

structure…>tenants cannot remove ‘fixtures’.

Property- s(4)(3)

S(4)(3) states whether plants are property:“A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale”.This states that removal of the whole plant

can still form the basis of the offence of theft. Some wild plants are protected under the

Acts of Parliament, and their removal might amount to an offence.

Property- s(4)(4)

S(4)(4) states whether animals are property:“Wild creatures , tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property.”Once someone else has caught the wild animal, it can

then be stolen. It is also theft to take away a pet, such as a cat or a zoo animal.

Oxford v Moss (1978) held confidential info is not property within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968.

Marshall (1998) took into account the value of the tickets before considering it was Theft.

Kelly (1998) held body parts could be property, even though the common law is that there is no property in a corpse.

Belonging to another- s(5)(1)

S(5)(1) states “property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest”.

This means that at the time the property is appropriated it must belong to another. A person who owns the fullest rights over it.

Webster (2006) held that when duplicate property has been delivered to the d by mistake, the d cannot keep the second one.

Turner (No.2)(1971) a person can be convicted of theft where he steals another persons rights over goods.

Woodman (1974) a person can be in control of property even though he does not know that he possesses it.

Williams v Phillips (1957) abandoned property can become the property of the person who owns it.

Belonging to another- s(5)(3+4)

S(5)(3) states that “where a person receives property from another and is under obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or other proceeds shall be regarded as belonging to another”.

Davidge and Bunnett (1984) where money and cheques are given for a particular purpose they must be used for that particular person.

DPP v Huskinson (1988) this will only apply if there is a legal rather than moral obligation.

S(5)(4) states that where you are given something by mistake and have a legal obligation to give it back keeping it may be theft.

Dishonesty

The word was found to have no legal meaning other than its natural meaning as it was not defined in the Theft Act 1968. Where s(2)(1) gave specific situations where a person would be deemed not dishonest.

The three exceptions were: appropriation in belief you have the right to deprive the other of it; appropriation in the belief that they would have the other’s consent and; there appropriation cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

Small (1987) states that if you genuinely believe the car had been abandoned you are not guilty of theft.

Dishonesty (cont)…

Lord Chief Justice from Ghosh (1982) set out the definitive test for dishonesty. The 2 part test is-

(1) Would the d’s behaviour be regarded as dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people?*If no then the prosecution fails*

(2) Was the d aware that this conduct would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.

The first part of the test is objective and the second part is subjective.

Intention to permanently deprive

Merely borrowing something does not form an intention to permanently deprive. So this provides an excuse for criminals however, evidence is needed to prove intention to permanently deprived.

S(6)(1) helps explain this by stating the 2 aspects. - Disposing of the property regardless of others rights- A borrowing or lending making it equivalent to outright

taking or disposalThis can be seen in Marshall (1998) where a sale to

another traveller was disposal regardless of the companies rights.

DPP v Jones (2002) taking and destroying of property can amount to an intention to permanently deprive.

Intention to permanently deprive (cont)…

The aspects of borrowing have led to some difficulties…

Lloyd (1985) taking films from a cinema for a short time for them to be copied does not amount to theft because they did not intend to permanently deprive.

Velumyl (1989) d had intention to permanently deprive because she did not intend to return the same notes and coins.

Easom (1971) held that conditional intent does not satisfy theft.

ROBBERY

Robbery - Theft Act 1968 s(8)(1)

Provides the definition for robbery:

“A person is guilty of robbery 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 seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.”

Robbery- the key elements

2 elements of Actus Reus:- Actus reus of theft - Using or threatening force immediately

before or at the time of the theft2 elements of Mens Rea:- Mens rea of theft- Intent or recklessness, as to the use or threat

of force

What amounts to force/threat of force?

Dawson and James (1976) held the word ‘force’ is given its ordinary meaning.

B+R v DPP (2007) held it does not matter if the v is actually put in fear or not, it is the d’s intention that matters.

Clouden (1987) held that the force does not have to be direct force on the victim. The word ‘force’ is all that’s required.

Bentham (2005) held that as long as there is an intention to create fear it does not matter that the threat was not real.

When does force or threat have to take place?

Immediately before, or at the time of the stealing.

Hale (1978) the act of stealing can be a continuing act, the jury decide when the appropriation is complete.

Corcoran and Anderton (1980) knocking a handbag out of the v’s grasp with force was sufficient for there to be a robbery, even though the robber did not take the bag.

The connection between the force and threat

The force, or threat of force, must be used in order to steal.

Say the force was used for a different purpose, like rape, then it is not robbery. So if the force was used to allow the theft to happen then it is robbery.

Hale (1978) held tying up a woman to allow for the theft satisfies the force element or robbery.

So basically…

NO THEFT, NO ROBBERY.

BURGLARY

Burglary- Theft Act 1968 s(9)(1)

Provides the definition for burglary:

“A person is guilty of burglary if…(1)(a) he enters any buildings or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to

commit any such offence; or(1)(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 infliction person there in any GBH”.

Burglary- the key elements (9)(1)(a)

3 elements of Actus Reus:- Enters- A building or part of a building s(9)(3)- As a trespasser2 elements of Mens Rea:- Knowledge or recklessness as to his entering

as a trespasser- With intent to commit theft, GBH or damage

to the building or its contents.

Burglary- the key elements (9)(1)(b)

4 elements of Actus Reus:- Enters- A building or part of a building s(9)(3)- As a trespasser- Actus reus of theft or GBH or damage to the

building or its contents2 elements of Mens Rea:- Knowledge or recklessness as to his entering as a

trespasser- Mens rea for theft of GBH or attempted

theft/GBH.

The common elements

EntersBuilding or part ofAs a trespasserKnowledge of recklessness as to his entering

as a trespasser

Enters

Must be “effective” entry and is a question of fact.Collins (1973) stated that the entry must be

substantial and effective; this means it enables the crime to be committed.

Brown (1985) head and shoulders inside of the prohibited area is enough for effective entry.

Ryan (1996) entry is effective even if the crime intended cannot be committed. It was also held that partial entry is sufficient. But this suggests that entry need not be sufficient nor effective. Under (a) there is no requirement of a successful conviction.

Building or a part of

No formal definition of a building, but it must be a fairly permanent structure.

Theft Act 1968 s(9)(3) states “a building will apply to an inhabited vehicle or vessel at times when the person having habitation in it is not there as well as times when he is”.

For the purpose of burglary it is only necessary to enter part of a building as a trespasser.

Walkington (1979) part of a building may include a partitioned-off part of a shop; this includes a sectioned of part for the till.

As a trespasser

Walkington (1979) trespass can be defined as occurring when a person intentionally or recklessly enters a building in the possession of another without permission or a legal right to do so.

Collins (1973) a d could not be guilty of burglary if he was outside the building before the permission to enter was given as he would not then enter as a trespasser.

Permission is given either expressly or impliedly from the circumstances. A person who is given permission to enter as one purpose but in fact enters for another is a trespasser.

Jones and Smith (1976) the d’s were convicted or burglary because they had knowingly exceeded their permission to be in the house.

Knowledge or recklessness as to his entering as a trespasser

The trespass must be voluntary, not forced or purely accidental (this is the knowledge).

The recklessness is Cunningham (1957)- subjective recklessness that is where the d knows there is a risk but is still willing to take it and takes it deliberately.

The different elements

S(9)(1)(a) the d does not have to have committed that offence. He only has to have had the mens rea of intention to commit either theft, GBH or damage to the building or its contents. The d formed the intention before he entered the building as a trespasser, so it could be a conditional intent.

S(9)(1)(b) the d must commit or attempt to commit theft or GBH. So full actus reus and mens rea is needed. As Lord Diplock stated in Mowatt (1968), it is enough that the d foresaw that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.