Property Offences: Theft and Robbery

According to the Theft Act 1968, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was dishonest at the time of appropriation and that the defendant had a reasonable belief in their right to deprive the other of the property.

If a person appropriates property in the belief that they have the other's consent, they are considered to have acted dishonestly.

A person who appropriates property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered taking reasonable steps is considered to have acted dishonestly.

The reasonableness of a person's belief is not a factor in determining whether their actions were dishonest.

A person who appropriates property as a trustee or personal representative can claim a belief that the owner cannot be discovered taking reasonable steps as a defence.

The definition of theft in the Theft Act 1968, s1 only applies to property belonging to another person.

In R v Lloyd, the court held that D's intention to remove some of the value of the films was equivalent to outright taking.

In R v Mitchell, the court held that D's abandonment of the car indicated an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the car.

AG's Reference (1 and 2 1979) held that a conditional intent to permanently deprive is not sufficient for theft.

Robbery requires the use of force or threat of force immediately before or after the theft.

In R v Robinson, the court held that D was guilty of robbery because he used a knife to threaten the woman's husband.

Corcoran v Anderton held that a momentary touching of the handbag was not sufficient for appropriation.

For robbery, the force used must be serious.

In P v DPP, the court held that D's snatching of the cigarette from V's hand was sufficient for robbery.

In R v DPP, the court held that V's fear of force must be proven for robbery.

In R v Khan, the court held that the apprehension of future force was not sufficient for robbery.

Under s2(1)(a), an honest belief in a moral right is sufficient to establish a defence.

The value of the property may affect the steps taken to find the owner under s2(1)(c).

The Ivey/Barton test is a one-part test for determining dishonesty.

Under R v Ghosh, the jury must first determine whether the defendant's conduct was objectively dishonest before considering their subjective knowledge and belief.

The R v Barton case made the Ivey/Barton test binding in criminal law.

The defendant's intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property is not necessary to establish the offence of theft under s6 of the Theft Act.

If the defendant replaces the stolen property with an identical item, they will not be guilty of theft under s6 of the Theft Act.

If the defendant only removes partial value from the property, they will not be guilty of theft under s6 of the Theft Act.

The R v Raphael case held that the defendant's intention to ransom the stolen property back to the victim is not equivalent to an intention to permanently deprive.

Dishonesty is defined in the Theft Act.

What is the requirement for the prosecution to prove dishonesty in the context of theft?

What is the exception to the honest belief defence under s2(1)(c) of the Theft Act 1968?

What is the significance of the reasonableness of a person's belief in determining dishonesty?

What is the requirement for the appropriation of property to be considered dishonest under s2(1) of the Theft Act 1968?

What is the effect of the defendant's belief in their right to deprive the other of the property under s2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968?

What is the significance of the defendant's belief that the owner cannot be discovered taking reasonable steps under s2(1)(c) of the Theft Act 1968?

What is the key element that distinguishes robbery from theft?

In R v Mitchell, what was the significant factor that led the court to hold that the defendant did not intend to permanently deprive?

What is the requirement for the force or threat of force in robbery, according to the court in R v DPP?

In AG's Reference (1 and 2 1979), what was the court's holding regarding conditional intent to permanently deprive?

What is the significance of the court's holding in R v Robinson?

What is the key element of appropriation in robbery, according to the court in Corcoran v Anderton?

What is the significance of the court's holding in R v Khan?

What is the requirement for dishonesty in theft, according to the circumstances AR?

What is the significance of the court's holding in R v Lloyd?

What is the requirement for the mens rea of robbery, according to the result MR?

What is the correct sequence of steps to determine dishonesty according to the Ivey/Barton test?

In R v Hayes, what was the court's holding regarding the objective standard of dishonesty?

What is the significance of the value of the property in the context of s2(1)(c)?

In R v Small, what was the court's holding regarding the defendant's conduct?

What is the key difference between the R v Ghosh test and the Ivey/Barton test?

In R v Raphael, what was the significance of the defendant's intention to sell the car back to the victim?

What is the significance of the R v Barton case?

What is the definition of theft under s6 of the Theft Act 1968?

What is the significance of the R v Velumyl case?

What is the key distinction between s2(1)(a) and s2(1)(b)?