Zusammenfassung der Ressource
AQA law unit 4: Theft act 1986 (Theft
and Robbery)
- Section 1: Theft
- A Person is guilty of theft
if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with
the intent to permanently depriving
the other of it
- Actus Reus
- Section 3: Appropriation
- Assuming the rights by a person
of the owner amounts to
appropriation
- Useful cases:
- Pitham and Hehl (1977)
- Morris (1983)
- Lawrence (1971)
- Gomez (1993)
- Hinks (2000)
- Section 4: Property
- "This includes Money and all other property including
real or personal property, things in action and other
intangible property"
- Personal property: Your personal property e.g your
phone, your comupter, but also inlcudes stuff such as
cars
- Kelly and Lindsay (1998): It was held that body parts
were property, as they were acquired 'different
attributes by virtue of application of skill such as
dissection or preservation techniques, for exhibition
or teaching purposes.
- Real property: Refers to land and
buildings. Under S4 (1), land can
be stolen but this can be dine
under circumstances includuing:
1. A trustee or personal
representative takes land in
breach of his duties as a trustee
or personal representative, 2
Someone not in possesionof the
land devers anything forming
part of the land from the land
and 3. A tenant takes a fixture or
structure fro the land let to him.
- Other intangible property: Includes other rights
lacking any physical presence.
- A-G of Hong Kong V Chan
Nai-Keung(1987) Export quota is
seen as intangible property
- Oxford V Moss(1979):
Knowledge of Exam
questions on an
Examination paper was held
not to be property
- Things that can't be stolen includes:
Wild mushrooms or foliage (unless
used for commercial purposes e.g
Selling them) and electricity
- Section 5: Belonging to another
- Any person having possestion or in control of that property
- Useful cases:
- Turner (No 2) (1971): Stealing your own car,
which is under repair by someone else, can
be considered as theft.
- Woodman (1974): Taking any leftover
scraps of metal can be seen as theft
- Klineberg and Marsden (1999)
- Wain (1995)
- Davidge V Bunnet (1984): The defendant was guilty of theft as
she was given money that should be used to pay the gas bill but
was used to buy her Christmas presents
- A-G's Reference (No 1 of 1983) (1985): The Defendant
was under obligation to make restoration
- Hall (1972)
- Trust Property, where a Trustee can steal it
- Property received under an Obligation
- Property received by another's mistake
- Mens Rea
- Section 2: Dishonesty
- The defendant is not Dishonest, if he believes that he
had right in law, would have the other's consent and/or
the owner can't be found
- Robinson: (1977) Because that the
defendnant had a right to take the £5,he was
not being dishonest.
- In order to prove dishonesty, the Ghosh
test is set out to to see if the person is
dishonest, via both objective and
subjective.
- Ghosh (1982): The doctor claimed fees for operations that he did
not carry out, and has stated that the amount was equal of his
consultation fees
- 1. Was the defendant being
dishonest according to the
ordinary standards of a
reasonable and honest
person?
- 2. Was the Defendant aware that he was
being dishonest by those standards?
- Feely (1973)
- Section 6: With the
Intention to permanently
deprive the other of it.
- Requires intention
- The defendant must threat the property as if it was his own
- Lloyd (1985) The goodness or
practical value must have gone from
the proerty
- Rapheal and another(2008)
Offering to sell the porerty back
to the owner is seen as treating
the property as his own
- Useful cases
- Velumyl (1989)
- DPP v Lavender (1994)
- Easom (1971)
- Section 8: Robbery
- A person is guilty of Robbery
of 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
put or seeks to putany person
in fear of being then and
there subjected to force.
- Mens Rea
- The mens rea for theft
(Dishonesty and intention to
deprive permanently)
- The intention to use force to steal
- Actus Reus
- Completed Theft
- All of the elements of theft must be intact for a person to be
liable for robbery, which are included in Section 1 of the theft act
- Theft can be seen as a continuing act
- The use of force or the use
of threat of force
- Useful cases
- Dawson and James (1976)
Pushing the victim can be
seen as force
- Clouden (1987) D was guilty of robbery as he
used force to wrench a shopping basket to
the user's hand
- B and R v DPP (2007) The defendants, despite the victim being in
shock, were still guilty of theft of his £5 his watch, travel card and
his phone. The defendants only pushed him and held his arms.
- Hale (1979): Force was being used on the victim, as one defendant put
his hand over her mouth to stop the victim from screaming, and the
other defendant to raid the house and steal a jewellery box, then tied
her up on a chair.
- Lockley (1995)
- The force can be small, and does not have to
actually frighten the victim, showing that the
use of force is only to be shown and can amount
to robbery
- The force must be used
before or at the time of
the theft