complete lecture notes for property offences incl theft , burglary and robbery.
textbook linked to this is Clarkson and Keating : criminal law 10th edition by SR Kyd , T Elliott and MA Walters chapter 9
Lecture 8 - Property offences
Theft , robbery and burglary
Theft
S1(1) theft act 1968
Person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the
intention of permanently depriving the other of it
S1(2) its immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or for thief’s own
benefit
AR =
Appropriation S3
Of property S4
Belonging to another S5
MR =
Dishonestly S2
Intention to permanently deprive S6
S3 appropriation
Any assumption by a person of rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation and 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 the owner”
Morris - held this means any of the rights of the owner , if person does anything with property
that owner can do with property that amounts to an appropriation . Not assumption of all rights of
owner but any of the rights.
Lawrence - held you can have an appropriation even if other person consents to it . Here he
was an Italian student arriving at Victoria and taxi driver told him it was a long and expensive
journey so student offered £1 but taxi driver took another £1 and £5 from students wallet .
Student didn’t object to this. Correct fare should have been 52p so D convicted of theft under S1
of TA since elements for theft were present . Can still be an appropriation even if owner consents
Gomez confirms decision in Lawrence .
Hinks - D , hinks made amends with man of limited intelligence . He had building society
account containing his savings . Almost everyday between April and nov , hints accompanied
man to building society where he made withdrawals of max sum of £300 a day . Total of £60k was
deposited in mr hinks account . She was charged with theft . He willingly handed over money as
a gift . She was dishonest in accepting this gift as guy had no idea of the value of assets.
Decided that receiving a gift can amount to appropriation as guilty of theft will hinge on
whether jury consider she was dishonest to accept gift.
Thieves are assuming rights of owner but in accepting gift she becomes owner so there’s no
assumption
Under civil law it would permit her to become the legal owner of the money but under criminal law
decision in hinks means she has in effect stolen her own money.
So when S3(1) uses the word assumption it really means ‘exercise’ so any dealing with property
or any exercise of a right of owner amounts to an appropriation ( even if owner expressly
authorises it and there’s no circumstances which might render transaction voidable)
In Wheatley v the commissioner of police of british virgin islands the privy council endorsed
hinks rejecting an argument that it cannot apply where there is no loss to the victim - if someone
willingly hands over to someone else there’s no loss to V but here she was convicted of
essentially stealing her own money.
, S3(2) protection of innocent purchasers
- where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a
person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself
to be acquiring shall by reason of any defect in transferor title amount to theft of property
- Original acquisition is not theft and neither is any later dealing with the property by innocent
purchaser
S4 property
Defines property to include ‘ money and all other property , real or personal including things
in action and other tangible property’
Money -
- where a person steals monies held in a bank account or an agreed overdraft facility by means
of appropriating a cheque then that person may be charged with theft of a chose in action ,
namely the monies held in the account of overdraft ; R v Kohn
- Similarly where person receives cheque from another which he then presents and which is
honoured he causes the others credit balance to be diminished and thereby appropriates
it and if he is acting dishonestly he may be convicted of theft : R v Williams(roy) 2001
- Inappropriate in such circumstances to charge person with theft of cheque form for there will
be no intention permanently to deprive drawer of cheque form which would on
presentation for payment be returned to drawer via his bank “ R v Preddy and slade; R v
Dhillon 1996
- When you steal cash it is easily theft as you have stolen the paper but with cheques its not
money its debt that bank owes person . Once you put money in a bank account its not
longer money but debt that bank owes you . You have right to sue bank for value of that
money . Its then called a thing in action
Thing in action is a person right of property which can only be claimed or enforced by legal
action and not by taking physical possession e.g. debts , right under a trust , copyright or trade
mark , credit balance in bank account , contractual right to overdraw account
Things that cannot be stolen :
- electricity - see S13 TA 1968 dishonestly uses without due authority or dishonestly causes to
be wasted or diverted any electricity : Low v Blease
- Information : Oxford v Moss dishonestly obtaining proof of exam paper , returned paper after
reading contents . Charged by uni authorities by theft of confidential information . Held though
his conduct was to be condemned and described as cheating , the conduct didn’t fall within
definition of intangible property so couldn’t be charge of theft
Real property -
- S4(2) a person cannot steal land or things forming part of land and severed from it by him
or by his directions except in the following cases:
a) when he is a trustee or personal rep or it authorised by power of attorney or as liquidator
of company or otherwise sells or disposes of land belonging to another and he
appropriates land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the
confidence reposed in him , or
b) When he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the
land by severing it or causing it to be severed or after it has been severed or
c) When being in possession of the land under tenancy he appropriates the whole or part of
any fixture or structure let to be used with the land
So there is only 1 category of person who can be charged with stealing land itself , these are
the trustees etc who act in breach of confidence. 2nd circumstance only applies where
something has been severed from land. This makes it theft to dig up turfs from someones lawn
or dismantle a wall and take the bricks
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller kater. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
