Hello and welcome to criminal law and practice for the sqe. And in this short video, we're going to be going over the key theft related offenses. Ok. So in line with the SQE assessment specification at the moment, we're still working on that functioning legal knowledge. So we're still looking at the core principles of criminal liability in the context of specified criminal offenses. So questions may draw on any combination of the topics within this FLK two assessment which may be encountered in practice. So by the end of your independence and study on this topic, you should be able to recall the key theft offenses within the Theft Act 1968. You should also be able to identify, define and apply the substantive elements of the offense of theft and also be able to identify, define and apply the substantive elements of the offense of burglary. And we're also going to look at robbery as well as a kind of aggravated theft offense. Ok. So starting off with the general offense of theft. So theft is defined, it's a statutory offense which is defined in section one subsection one of the Theft Act 1968 and the statute defines the offense as a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. And as you can see by the diagram on the screen, the statute actually sets out quite nicely in order the different elements of the offense I could have started with dishonesty first. Um, but that's just how, um, the diagram was displayed on this occasion. So theft then as we've already discussed previously is an either way offense. Ok. So the starting point for an offense of theft is that the, the presumption is always that um either way offenses should be tried in the summary court if possible. However, if it's a particularly serious or com complex offense of theft, um then obviously it can be allocated to the crown court. The maximum custodial sentence upon conviction for a single theft offense in the magistrate's court is six months because that's their maximum sentencing powers. Um And in the crown court, the maximum sentence is up to seven years imprisonment. Now, there is also an important classification caveat in relation to theft. So where we have a very low level um, shop theft, a shoplifting offense which is less than the value of £200 is classed as a summary only offense which means it can only be heard and tried in the magistrate's court. However, the defendant still retains a right to choose trial by jury if they indicate an intention to plead not guilty. So, theft, defenses can range uh enormously in terms of their seriousness from minor shoplifting to high value thefts. And this is why it's categorized as an either way offense. And we have a specific sentencing guideline that you can go away and have a look at on the sentencing council's website that gives you an indication of how they assess the harm and culpability when figuring out the appropriate sentence. So we're going to start off then by discussing the actus reus elements of the offense of theft. And hopefully, by this point, you're able to have a look at that definition and be able to identify which elements relate to the axis reus and which elements relate to the mens rea So appropriation then is our first key element of actus reus. And that is defined in section three of the, the theft Act as any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation. This includes where he has come by the property innocently or not without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner. So the section on appropriation is quite wordy. Um So we can summarize that. So, appropriation is assuming the rights of an owner. So this can take place in many different forms. It could be simply um taking ownership of an item, picking it up off the shop shelf, um or it can be selling the item because that's a right that the owner has to sell it, to deal with the item, to destroy it, to take ownership of it, take possession of it. So on its own appropriation is not necessarily a criminal act appropriation at this point is quite neutral and it needs to coincide with all of the other elements of Actus rus a mens rea to give us um a conviction of theft. So it's, it's very widely interpreted. And um you can look at the key case of Morris where a theft was um established when the defendant removed and switched uh price labels of goods in the store. And even though he hadn't left the store at that point, that was an appropriation to switch the price labels on there is a right that the owner has and nobody else. Um But that's not to say that physical possession of the property um is a requirement of appropriation. Ok. So if you arrange to sell your friend's property on ebay, without their knowledge, you have appropriated property belonging to them, the consent of the owner of the property to the take is irrelevant. The property is still appropriated. So even if the person consents to it, consent is irrelevant to appropriation. Uh And you can have a look at the case of Hinks, which gives you a good overview of why that's the case. Um And you can also look at the key case of Lawrence as well. Um So this was where a foreign exchange student ordered, a taxi couldn't speak English and the taxi driver tried to take advantage of them. And you know, for example, that the ride should have been five pounds and um because the victim couldn't speak king that he just handed over his wallet. So he consented to the driver taking as much money as what was required by the fare. Um Now the taxi driver took advantage of the victim and took 50 pounds when the fare, you know, should have only been five pounds. So consent is irrelevant. Ok. There was still a dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. So section three, section two of the theft Act provides an exception from liability for an innocent purchaser of stolen property who purchases in good faith and full value. A purchaser in these circumstances does not commit the theft by keeping or dealing with the property having discovered it was stolen. Ok, which makes sense that they came by the property innocently. Um There was no faults there. So the theft is complete at the point where the defendant appropriates with a dishonest intention to permanently deprive. So if somebody picks up a can of tomatoes from a shop and hides them under her jacket with the intention of walking out of the shop without paying for them, then um she's committed all the definition, definitional elements of theft they laid out at that point, even though she hasn't yet walked out of the store with them. So, appropriation can also be a one off occurrence or it can be a continuing process or act in course of dealing with property, a person may notionally appropriate it several times, but only when all the requirements for theft coincide is the theft complete. So it's the same as any other offense. The actus race and the men's race all need to be established and they need to coincide in time. So let's move on to section four of the theft act then which tells us what is considered property and property includes money and all other property real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. So a thing in action is usually a right to something. Ok. So if you went to Alton Towers and you bought a fast pass ticket and somebody stole that from you, they would be stealing the physical ticket, the paper that the ticket was printed on. But more importantly, they would also be stealing that right, that thing in action, the right to um, jump in the queue lines, for example, ok. There are some things though that do not amount to property. So confidential information does not amount to property. Electricity is not considered property within the meaning of this act. A property that is illegal is however still property. So for example, drugs can be stolen. Now, um there might be implications if somebody were to go and report that to the police. Um But in theory, illegal property can still be stolen. A corpse is not property. And uh you know, one aspect of that is because who does a corpse belong to once that person has died. So a corpse is not considered property. However, body parts where a special skill has been applied to them or they have been embalmed for preservation purposes can be considered as property for the purposes of that. So for example, um Jeremy Bentham had his body embalmed and preserved. And if you were to go and steal one of his, his arms, then that could amount to theft because skill has been applied to the limbs and they then belong to somebody. So it's, it's, you know, if the corpse was kept in a museum, it then would belong to the museum. Uh in general land cannot be stolen as well. If you moved your uh boundary fence onto your neighbour's land, then that's a civil matter. So many of the exceptions as to what's considered property is because the other offenses exist to deal with that um that offending behavior, um picking flowers, fruit and foliage from any plant, growing wild and wild mushrooms is not stealing unless it is done for commercial reward. So you pick wild growing flowers to then sell and make a profit, then that can be considered theft. But if you just picked those wild growing flowers to put in a vase in your home, that would not be considered theft, wild animals that are not tamed or domesticated, um or a carcass of any animal could not be stolen unless it had been reduced into the possession of another. For example, the animal belonged to a zoo. So we we've kind of discussed some of the elements of belonging to another as well within that. So it's important the property also belongs to another. In general, a person cannot steal something from them themselves. But there are situations where that um could be the case. So section five of the theft acts tells us the definition of belonging to another property shall be regarded as belonging to any person, having possession or control of it or having in it, any proprietary right or interest. So you don't have to be the owner of the property for that to be considered as belonging to another. So if um I own a textbook that I then lend to you and you then go and show it to your friend, that book in law could be considered as belonging to each one of us. And if somebody then goes and steals that book, they've stolen it from me, you and your friend because your friend had possession or control of it at the time. Um I had lent that to you. So you also had possession um and some element of control over that and it belonged to me, I had ownership of that. Hey, so, um there is an example of a case where it is possible to steal your own property if it is under the possession or control of another. So the case is called Turner number two. And so Turner number two had taken his car to be serviced at the garage. Uh and instead of paying the garage their money that they deserved that they work for the owner went to the garage in the middle of the night and took their own car back because it was in the legal control of the garage and because there was all of the other elements present, then, um the property was considered as belonging to another, even though technically, it was owned by the defendant um property which is lost is not abandoned even if the owner gives up the search. Ok. Um In the case of Ricketts and Basildon, the court considered whether charity collection bags containing donations left outside a charity shop could be stolen. And it was decided that as the donor of the bags had intended the charity to take ownership of them, they had not been abandoned and were therefore capable of being stolen. So uh another key provision then under section five, subsection four, if the defendant receives property by mistake and it is under an obligation to make restoration, the property shall be regarded as belonging to the person entitled to the restoration. So unfortunately, if you receive a nice surprise sum in your bank account by mistake, then there is an obligation on you to return it. Unfortunately, so we've spoken about all of the actus reus elements there. Uh I would recommend going away and doing some further reading into more detail into those actus race elements that leaves us with the mens rea which has two elements and that's that the defendant must act dishonestly and do so with the intention to permanently deprive. Now, section two of the Theft Act sets out the circumstances when an appropriation is not to be regarded as dishonest. So, and that's where they had a right in law to appropriate the property or the owner would have consented, had they known about the circumstances or that the owner cannot be discovered by taking all reasonable steps. So those are the kind of negative categories that stab that uh disprove dishonesty. Then we also have the common law which defines what dishonesty is. And in the recent 2020 case of Barton and Booth, the court of appeal endorsed the test that came out of the civil case of ivy and genting casinos, but overruled the long standing two limb ghost test that we used to refer to for dishonesty. And so the new test for dishonesty comprises of two stages. It asks firstly, what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts and that's assessed subjectively, we look at it from the defendant's point of view. And stage two was the defendant's conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. And that's assessed objectively. So ultimately, that is for the jury or the Magistrates to decide and therefore an intention to permanently deprive, just bear in mind that this is the mens rea so you don't have to actually permanently deprive anyone of property. This element is purely mens rea so they have to have had the intention to permanently deprive. And uh it's important to note as well that in certain circumstances, borrowing can amount to an intention to permanently deprive, ok? If it is of a significant period of time that makes it akin to an outright taking or disposal of the property. Ok. So let's move on to robbery then. So, um the offense of robbery is defined in section eight of the theft act 1968 and 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 or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. So essentially robbery is theft plus the use or threat of force against the victim. Robbery is a serious offense. It's tribal only on indictment in the Crown court. It's a specific intent crime and can warrant up to life imprisonment. So the use of or threat of force needs to be proven as part of the actus reus. In addition to the other actus reus elements of theft that we just discussed and the intention to use or threat to use force in order to steal must be proven by the prosecution alongside the usual mens rea element of um theft. Now, the use of force need only be slight and the jury will decide whether the force was significant enough to warrant the offense, but it must be used at the time of the theft, which when the appropriation can be viewed as a continuing act can be relatively wide in scope and even the slightest touch knocking a victim off balance while they steal their wallet out of their back pocket, for example, has amounted to force necessary to establish robbery in the case law. Um However, the force used must be used against the person and not the property. And remember that the threat of force can be expressed or implied, doesn't necessarily have to be expressed. It can also be implied, but future threats are insufficient as help could be sought in the meantime, before the defendant carries out that threat. And finally, then we're going to look briefly at the offense of burglary, which is found under section nine of the Theft Act. And a person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of the building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offenses as mentioned below or having entered into any building or part of the building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to afflict on any person, any grievous bodily harm. So, there are two different ways that you can commit the offense of burglary. So section nine, is divided by um, subsection one A and subsection one B. So we can see that subsection one A is established where the defendant enters the building already, having the intent to steal or inflict grievous bubbly harm or to do any unlawful damage to the building. Ok. So we think of burglary as just, um, entering the building as a trespasser to steal, but it can also burglary can also occur by causing grievous bodily harm or criminal damage to the building as well. So, this type of burglary has, is where the defendant has that ulterior intent to commit one of those three offenses that, um, we've just discussed. Um, so it's based on them having the intention to do one of those three things, even if they don't actually carry out one of those three things. And then subsection one B is where they didn't already have the intention, but having entered a building as a trespasser, the defendant then steals or attempts to steal or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm. So they didn't have the intention originally, but they actually carried out one of those acts or an attempt to commit one of those acts having entered as a trespasser. Ok. So it's just a kind of a, a cover all section. There are a number of different ways. It's not necessarily that one's more serious than the other. Uh, burglary is an either way offense. So it can be tried in either the Magistrates or the Crown court depending on the seriousness and complexity of the offense and depending on the outcome of the allocation procedure. Now, we have an interesting rule around burglary, domestic burglary. So we have a three strikes and your out rule in relation to domestic burglary, which if a defendant has been convicted of an offense of domestic burglary three times, then on their third strike, they must receive a minimum of a three year custodial sentence. The actus reus then is common to both types of burglary. It includes that the defendant must enter as a trespasser, um, with the intention to enter, uh, entry of the entire body is not necessary. So even if a person just pops their arm through to steal or do damage or cause harm, that may be sufficient. But the entry needs to be considered as effective. And that's a question of fact for the jury or the Magistrates and the mens rea is the knowing or being reckless as to entering as a trespasser. So they need to know or have some foresight that they are trespassing in order to be convicted of one of these offenses. And for subsection one A, they have to have that ulterior intent, intent as we discussed the intention to commit one of those offenses. Whereas subsection one B, we just need proof of the, the theft or the grievous bodily harm or an attempt, they don't have to have gone in there with the ulterior intent. Ok. So I hope that has helped in relation to the theft offenses. Uh Thank you very much for listening and I wish you all of the best on your journey to success.
Part 1 - Webinar
Part 1 - Slides
0 Users
1 Courses
0 Reviews