Theft
Theft is defined in section1 of the theft act 1968 which says a person is guilty of theft if he
‘dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it’. There are 5 elements of theft. The actus reus of theft is established
by proving the first 3 elements of theft which are appropriation, property and belonging to
another. Appropriation is assuming any rights of the owner. A case that highlights this is R v
Morris as switching labels and trying to pay a lower price was an appropriation, an
interference of the owners rights. Property can be defined as money, personal property, such
as cars, and things in action. However, confidential information doesn't count as property as
seen in the case of Oxford V Moss. Belonging to another describes how the property
belongs to another. A person can have possession or control of it. The case R v Turner
demonstrates this. The mens rea of theft is established by proving the last 2 elements of
theft which are dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive . Dishonesty has no actual
definition but there are two tests called the subjective and objective test which was created
because of the Ivey v Genting Casinos. The subjective test questions whether the D
believes they are acting dishonestly and the objective test questions whether a reasonable
person believes the D is acting dishonestly. Barton & Booth confirmed Iveys as a dishonesty
test for theft. Intention to permanently deprive means to deprive the owner of their property
permanently. The case that signifies this is R v Velumyl.
Robbery
Robbery is defined under section 8 of the theft act 1968. Robbery is where someone steals and
subjects the person to force or threat of force. There are 5 elements of actus reus in robbery. The
first element is complete theft. All elements of theft have to be completely satisfied in order for
robbery to occur. The case for this is R v Waters. The second element is force or threat of force,
which is seen in the case of R v Clouden. The third element is force on any person. This doesn't
have to be directly on the victim. The fourth element is where force occurs immediately before or
at the time of theft, as seen in r v hill. The fifth element is in order to steal, force must be used to
steal. For mens rea of robbery to be satisfied, the D must have the mens rea of theft, dishonestly
and intention to permanently deprive. There must be the intention to use force to steal.
Burglary
Burglary is defined under section 9 of the theft act 1968. There are 5 elements of burglary.
The actus reus of burglary is established by proving the first 3 elements of burglary which
are entry, entering a building or part of a building and trespassing. Partial entry is sufficient,
as shown in the case of R v Ryan. Building or part of a building is defined as an inhibited
place, such as a caravan or houseboat. A case that demonstrates this is B&S v Leathly
where a 25-foot container was found to be counted as a building. The case for entry of part
of a building comes from R v Walkington where a counter area of a shop counts as building.
Trespassing is where someone who doesn't have permission to enter the building. However,
someone can go beyond their permission as shown in the case of R v Smith + Jones.
Someone can have permission to enter, but does something they aren't meant to do. For
example, a person has permission to enter their dads house, but they steal the TV, that goes
beyond their permission. The mens rea of burglary is established by proving the last 2
elements of burglary, which are S.9 (1)(a) and S.9 (1)(b). S.9 (1)(a) states the D must have
intention to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage. S.9 (1)(b) states the D must have
committed or attempted to commit theft or GBH. The difference between the two is when the
decision is made to commit the ulterior offences (Steal or GBH). In S.9(1)(a) the decision is
made before entry and for S.9(1)(b) the decision is made upon entry.
Theft is defined in section1 of the theft act 1968 which says a person is guilty of theft if he
‘dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it’. There are 5 elements of theft. The actus reus of theft is established
by proving the first 3 elements of theft which are appropriation, property and belonging to
another. Appropriation is assuming any rights of the owner. A case that highlights this is R v
Morris as switching labels and trying to pay a lower price was an appropriation, an
interference of the owners rights. Property can be defined as money, personal property, such
as cars, and things in action. However, confidential information doesn't count as property as
seen in the case of Oxford V Moss. Belonging to another describes how the property
belongs to another. A person can have possession or control of it. The case R v Turner
demonstrates this. The mens rea of theft is established by proving the last 2 elements of
theft which are dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive . Dishonesty has no actual
definition but there are two tests called the subjective and objective test which was created
because of the Ivey v Genting Casinos. The subjective test questions whether the D
believes they are acting dishonestly and the objective test questions whether a reasonable
person believes the D is acting dishonestly. Barton & Booth confirmed Iveys as a dishonesty
test for theft. Intention to permanently deprive means to deprive the owner of their property
permanently. The case that signifies this is R v Velumyl.
Robbery
Robbery is defined under section 8 of the theft act 1968. Robbery is where someone steals and
subjects the person to force or threat of force. There are 5 elements of actus reus in robbery. The
first element is complete theft. All elements of theft have to be completely satisfied in order for
robbery to occur. The case for this is R v Waters. The second element is force or threat of force,
which is seen in the case of R v Clouden. The third element is force on any person. This doesn't
have to be directly on the victim. The fourth element is where force occurs immediately before or
at the time of theft, as seen in r v hill. The fifth element is in order to steal, force must be used to
steal. For mens rea of robbery to be satisfied, the D must have the mens rea of theft, dishonestly
and intention to permanently deprive. There must be the intention to use force to steal.
Burglary
Burglary is defined under section 9 of the theft act 1968. There are 5 elements of burglary.
The actus reus of burglary is established by proving the first 3 elements of burglary which
are entry, entering a building or part of a building and trespassing. Partial entry is sufficient,
as shown in the case of R v Ryan. Building or part of a building is defined as an inhibited
place, such as a caravan or houseboat. A case that demonstrates this is B&S v Leathly
where a 25-foot container was found to be counted as a building. The case for entry of part
of a building comes from R v Walkington where a counter area of a shop counts as building.
Trespassing is where someone who doesn't have permission to enter the building. However,
someone can go beyond their permission as shown in the case of R v Smith + Jones.
Someone can have permission to enter, but does something they aren't meant to do. For
example, a person has permission to enter their dads house, but they steal the TV, that goes
beyond their permission. The mens rea of burglary is established by proving the last 2
elements of burglary, which are S.9 (1)(a) and S.9 (1)(b). S.9 (1)(a) states the D must have
intention to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage. S.9 (1)(b) states the D must have
committed or attempted to commit theft or GBH. The difference between the two is when the
decision is made to commit the ulterior offences (Steal or GBH). In S.9(1)(a) the decision is
made before entry and for S.9(1)(b) the decision is made upon entry.
