Podcast
Questions and Answers
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.
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.
False
If a person appropriates property in the belief that they have the other's consent, they are considered to have acted dishonestly.
If a person appropriates property in the belief that they have the other's consent, they are considered to have acted dishonestly.
False
A person who appropriates property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered taking reasonable steps is 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.
False
The reasonableness of a person's belief is not a factor in determining whether their actions were dishonest.
The reasonableness of a person's belief is not a factor in determining whether their actions were dishonest.
Signup and view all the answers
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.
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.
Signup and view all the answers
The definition of theft in the Theft Act 1968, s1 only applies to property belonging to another person.
The definition of theft in the Theft Act 1968, s1 only applies to property belonging to another person.
Signup and view all the answers
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 Lloyd, the court held that D's intention to remove some of the value of the films was equivalent to outright taking.
Signup and view all the answers
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.
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.
Signup and view all the answers
AG's Reference (1 and 2 1979) held that a conditional intent to permanently deprive is not sufficient for theft.
AG's Reference (1 and 2 1979) held that a conditional intent to permanently deprive is not sufficient for theft.
Signup and view all the answers
Robbery requires the use of force or threat of force immediately before or after the theft.
Robbery requires the use of force or threat of force immediately before or after the theft.
Signup and view all the answers
In R v Robinson, the court held that D was guilty of robbery because he used a knife to threaten the woman's husband.
In R v Robinson, the court held that D was guilty of robbery because he used a knife to threaten the woman's husband.
Signup and view all the answers
Corcoran v Anderton held that a momentary touching of the handbag was not sufficient for appropriation.
Corcoran v Anderton held that a momentary touching of the handbag was not sufficient for appropriation.
Signup and view all the answers
For robbery, the force used must be serious.
For robbery, the force used must be serious.
Signup and view all the answers
In P v DPP, the court held that D's snatching of the cigarette from V's hand was sufficient for robbery.
In P v DPP, the court held that D's snatching of the cigarette from V's hand was sufficient for robbery.
Signup and view all the answers
In R v DPP, the court held that V's fear of force must be proven for robbery.
In R v DPP, the court held that V's fear of force must be proven for robbery.
Signup and view all the answers
In R v Khan, the court held that the apprehension of future force was not sufficient for robbery.
In R v Khan, the court held that the apprehension of future force was not sufficient for robbery.
Signup and view all the answers
Under s2(1)(a), an honest belief in a moral right is sufficient to establish a defence.
Under s2(1)(a), an honest belief in a moral right is sufficient to establish a defence.
Signup and view all the answers
The value of the property may affect the steps taken to find the owner under s2(1)(c).
The value of the property may affect the steps taken to find the owner under s2(1)(c).
Signup and view all the answers
The Ivey/Barton test is a one-part test for determining dishonesty.
The Ivey/Barton test is a one-part test for determining dishonesty.
Signup and view all the answers
Under R v Ghosh, the jury must first determine whether the defendant's conduct was objectively dishonest before considering their subjective knowledge and belief.
Under R v Ghosh, the jury must first determine whether the defendant's conduct was objectively dishonest before considering their subjective knowledge and belief.
Signup and view all the answers
The R v Barton case made the Ivey/Barton test binding in criminal law.
The R v Barton case made the Ivey/Barton test binding in criminal law.
Signup and view all the answers
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.
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.
Signup and view all the answers
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 replaces the stolen property with an identical item, they will not be guilty of theft under s6 of the Theft Act.
Signup and view all the answers
If the defendant only removes partial value from the property, 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.
Signup and view all the answers
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.
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.
Signup and view all the answers
Dishonesty is defined in the Theft Act.
Dishonesty is defined in the Theft Act.
Signup and view all the answers
What is the requirement for the prosecution to prove dishonesty in the context of theft?
What is the requirement for the prosecution to prove dishonesty in the context of theft?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the exception to the honest belief defence under s2(1)(c) of the Theft Act 1968?
What is the exception to the honest belief defence under s2(1)(c) of the Theft Act 1968?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the significance of the reasonableness of a person's belief in determining dishonesty?
What is the significance of the reasonableness of a person's belief in determining dishonesty?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the requirement for the appropriation of property to be considered dishonest under s2(1) of the Theft Act 1968?
What is the requirement for the appropriation of property to be considered dishonest under s2(1) of the Theft Act 1968?
Signup and view all the answers
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 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?
Signup and view all the answers
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 significance of the defendant's belief that the owner cannot be discovered taking reasonable steps under s2(1)(c) of the Theft Act 1968?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the key element that distinguishes robbery from theft?
What is the key element that distinguishes robbery from theft?
Signup and view all the answers
In R v Mitchell, what was the significant factor that led the court to hold that the defendant did not intend to permanently deprive?
In R v Mitchell, what was the significant factor that led the court to hold that the defendant did not intend to permanently deprive?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the requirement for the force or threat of force in robbery, according to the court in R v DPP?
What is the requirement for the force or threat of force in robbery, according to the court in R v DPP?
Signup and view all the answers
In AG's Reference (1 and 2 1979), what was the court's holding regarding conditional intent to permanently deprive?
In AG's Reference (1 and 2 1979), what was the court's holding regarding conditional intent to permanently deprive?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the significance of the court's holding in R v Robinson?
What is the significance of the court's holding in R v Robinson?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the key element of appropriation in robbery, according to the court in Corcoran v Anderton?
What is the key element of appropriation in robbery, according to the court in Corcoran v Anderton?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the significance of the court's holding in R v Khan?
What is the significance of the court's holding in R v Khan?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the requirement for dishonesty in theft, according to the circumstances AR?
What is the requirement for dishonesty in theft, according to the circumstances AR?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the significance of the court's holding in R v Lloyd?
What is the significance of the court's holding in R v Lloyd?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the requirement for the mens rea of robbery, according to the result MR?
What is the requirement for the mens rea of robbery, according to the result MR?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the correct sequence of steps to determine dishonesty according to the Ivey/Barton test?
What is the correct sequence of steps to determine dishonesty according to the Ivey/Barton test?
Signup and view all the answers
In R v Hayes, what was the court's holding regarding the objective standard of dishonesty?
In R v Hayes, what was the court's holding regarding the objective standard of dishonesty?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the significance of the value of the property in the context of s2(1)(c)?
What is the significance of the value of the property in the context of s2(1)(c)?
Signup and view all the answers
In R v Small, what was the court's holding regarding the defendant's conduct?
In R v Small, what was the court's holding regarding the defendant's conduct?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the key difference between the R v Ghosh test and the Ivey/Barton test?
What is the key difference between the R v Ghosh test and the Ivey/Barton test?
Signup and view all the answers
In R v Raphael, what was the significance of the defendant's intention to sell the car back to the victim?
In R v Raphael, what was the significance of the defendant's intention to sell the car back to the victim?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the significance of the R v Barton case?
What is the significance of the R v Barton case?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the definition of theft under s6 of the Theft Act 1968?
What is the definition of theft under s6 of the Theft Act 1968?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the significance of the R v Velumyl case?
What is the significance of the R v Velumyl case?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the key distinction between s2(1)(a) and s2(1)(b)?
What is the key distinction between s2(1)(a) and s2(1)(b)?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
Property Offences
Theft
- Definition: Theft Act 1968, s1
- Prosecution must prove dishonesty at the time of appropriation
- MR: Dishonesty, Theft Act s2
- Honest belief defences:
- s2(1)(a): Belief in law, not moral right
- s2(1)(b): Belief in consent
- s2(1)(c): Belief that owner cannot be found
- Dishonesty is determined by objective standards of ordinary decent people
- 2-part test for dishonesty:
- Assess D's subjective knowledge and belief
- Assess whether D's conduct was objectively dishonest
Robbery
- Definition: Theft Act 1968, s8
- Robbery = Theft + Force or threat of force + immediately before or at the time of stealing in order to steal
- Aggravated form of theft
- All 5 elements of theft must be established
- Force:
- AR: Force immediately before or at the same time of theft
- AR: Fear of force
- Threat of force can be express or implied
Case Law
- R v Lloyd: Intention to remove some value of property is not enough to constitute theft
- R v Mitchell: Abandoning property does not necessarily mean D intended to permanently deprive
- AGs reference (1 and 2 1979): Conditional intention to steal can still be a valid intention
- R v Robinson: Honest belief in entitlement to money can be a defence
- Corcoran v Anderton: Apprehension of force can be sufficient for robbery
- P v DPP: Snatching a cigarette without contact is not enough to constitute robbery
- R v DPP: Threat of force can be implied
- R v Khan: Apprehension of future force can be sufficient
- R v Small: Belief in right to property can be a defence
- R v Freely: Jury decides dishonesty based on common standards of ordinary decent people
- R v Ghosh (overruled): 2-part test for dishonesty
- Ivey v Genting Casinos: 2-part test for dishonesty is the correct approach
- R v Barton: Ivey v Genting Casinos is binding in criminal law
- R v Hayes: Industry standards are not relevant to the objective standard of dishonesty
- R v Raphael: Intention to ransom property back to V can be caught in s6(1)
- R v Velumyl: Intention to return property with something identical can be caught in s6(1)
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
Test your knowledge of property offences, including the legal definition of theft, dishonesty, and appropriation of property. Review the Theft Act 1968 and its sections, including s1 and s2, to prepare for this quiz.
