This document is a detailed essay plan for a unit 3 scenario question on property offences.
I have used the IDEA structure as provided by the WJEC guidance. You can use the same material for each property offences scenario, adjusting the application (as highlighted on the document in blue) each ...
The scenario is concerned with the issue of property offences. The actions of
(defendants in the scenario) must be considered in light of the Theft Act 1968
and relevant case law. By defining and explaining the relevant case law, it will be
possible to establish whether (defendants in the scenario) are guilty of any
property offences.
The least serious property offence of ‘theft’ is defined in s1 Theft Act 1968. It
states, ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.’
The actus reus for ‘theft’ is made up of three elements.
Identify: S3 Theft Act 1968
Define: Defines the element of ‘appropriation’ as ‘any assumption by a person
of the rights of an owner’. It was established in R v Morris (1983) that an
assumption of any of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation. In this
case, switching price tags was deemed to be appropriation, and theft was
committed even before purchasing the items. In Lawrence v MPC (1972) it was
established that there can be an appropriated even if it seems the owner
consented. S3(1) also covers situation where a defendant does not initially steal
an item. If the defendant borrows an item from someone, the appropriation takes
place as soon as they decide to keep it.
Apply: Have the defendants in the scenario assumed any rights of the owner? If
yes, they have ‘appropriated’ the property and could be guilty of theft.
Identify: S4 Theft Act 1968
Define: Defines the element of ‘property’ as ‘money and all other property, real
or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’. S4 also
includes things which do not constitute property, such as wildflowers or foliage
growing on any land unless it is for sale or reward [s4(3)] and wild creatures
[s4(4)]. In Smith (2011), prohibited drugs were held to be property.
Apply: Does the item which the defendants in the scenario ‘appropriated’ fall
under the definition of ‘property’? If yes, they may be charged with the offence of
theft.
Identify: S5 Theft Act 1968
Define: Defines the element of ‘belonging to another’ as any person having
‘possession or control of it or having in it any proprietary right or interest.’ Turner
(No. 2) (1971) established that a person can be liable for the theft of their own
, property when the defendant drove his car away from a garage without paying
for the repairs. S5(3) states that where property is given to a person with
instructions to deal with it in a certain way, the ownership remains with the giver.
S5(4) covers where a person receives property by mistake and is under
obligation to return it, failure to do so will amount to theft. This was
demonstrated in AG Ref (No.1 of 1983) (1985) which involves overpaid salary.
Apply: Did the property appropriated by the defendants belong to another
person? If so, they may be liable for theft.
The mens rea for ‘theft’ is made up of two elements.
Identify: S2 Theft Act 1968
Define: Defines the element of dishonesty. The section itself only outlines
situations in which the defendant would not be deemed ‘dishonest’. For example,
if he believes he has a right in law to deprive the other of it (a), if he believes he
would have the others consent to the appropriation (b), or if he appropriates the
property in the belief the person to whom the property belongs cannot be
discovered by taking reasonable steps (c). However, the test for dishonesty
comes from case law, most recently in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (2017).
Firstly, the jury must decide the state of the individual’s subjective, genuine
knowledge or belief as to facts. Secondly, the jury must decide whether the
defendant’s conduct was objectively dishonest by the standards of ordinary
decent people.
Apply: Do the defendants in the scenario fall under any exceptions outlined in
the statute? If yes, they may not be liable. If no, the test should be applied. Did
the defendants know they were acting dishonestly? Would the reasonable person
believe them to be acting dishonestly? If yes, they may be charged with theft.
Identify: S6 Theft Act 1968
Define: Defines the element of ‘intention to permanently deprive’. It states ‘a
person has the necessary intention if they treat the property as their own
regardless of the owners’ rights’. It also states they have the intention when
‘borrowing in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking’. In R v
Lloyd (1985) it was held that borrowing could fall in the remit of s6 if the property
was borrowed ‘until the goodness, the virtue, the practical value...has gone out
of the article.’ However, in R v Velumyl (1989) the defendant was charged with
theft after taking bank notes from a safe with the intention to replace money of
the same value later. It was held that he was depriving the owner of the exact
notes and coins despite intending to return items of the same value.
Apply: Did the defendants in the scenario intend to permanently deprive the
owner of their property? If yes, they may be guilty of theft.
Having applied all elements of theft, (defendants in scenario) satisfy all the
requirements so may be guilty of theft. However, they may instead be charged
with the offence of ‘robbery’ which is defined by S8 Theft Act 1968. It states, ‘A
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 lydiadavies. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.09. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
