Criminal Law (first term)

Terms in this set (255)

-(1)There is appropriation if the D has assumed any of the rights of the owner. This means that if the D has done something that the owner has the right to do then this is an appropriation. It must be shown that the act is something that only an owner has the right to do. Looking at something is therefore not appropriation because people other than the owner have the right to do that. There is no need to show that the victim has lost the property for there to be an appropriation
-It has also been stated that there is no need to show that the victim has lost the property for there to be appropriation; indeed there is no need to show that the victim's property interests have been adversely interfered with. In Morris: Conjoined appeals both involving the switching of price labels in supermarkets. Morris was arrested after paying a lower sum for certain items, Burnside was arrested before paying for the goods. The question for the Lords to decide was whether an appropriation required the assumption of all rights of an owner and also if there was an appropriation at what point in time did this occur.Held:There need not be an appropriation of all the rights of an owner. The appropriation took place when there was an adverse interference with or usurpation of the rights of an owner which was at the point of switching the label, not at the point of taking the goods from the shelf.
- The shopper was not appropriating goods by taking them off the shelf, only when there was interference was "adverse" was it an appropriation
Lawrence v MPC: An Italian man who spoke little English, arrived at Victoria Station on his first visit to this country. He got a taxi and gave the driver a piece of paper on which an address was written. The taxi driver told him it was a long way and would be expensive. On arrival at the destination the Italian, took one pound out of his wallet and gave it to the driver. The driver intimated that it was not enough and reached into his wallet and took a further six pounds out of it. The correct lawful fare for the journey was in the region of 10s. 6d.The driver was convicted of theft and appealed contending that the Italian man had consented to the appropriation of the six pounds and his conviction could not therefore stand.

His conviction for theft was upheld. An appropriation can take place notwithstanding the consent of the owner.
-Failing to disclose information:
-This is found in section 3 of the TA, the offence also deals with "deception by silence". However, this offence is only committed when the D is under a legal duty to disclose information, this can also be found under section 2 where there is implied deception
-Fraud by abuse of position:
-This is found in section 4(1)
-This will apply to when trustees and those who owe a fiduciary relation to others. However, it is unclear whether it will apply more widely than this. Remarkably the Act fails to define a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or to act against the financial interests of another person
-Section 6: Fraud and possession offences
-This is found in section 6(1) of the act
-There needs to be no mens rea for this offence, however, it must be shown that D intends the article to be used in fraud
-Section 7 creates an offence of creating, adapting, supplying or offering for supply any article knowing or intending it to be used in connection with fraud
-Obtaining services dishonestly
-This is contained in section 11 of the act, this replaces section 1 of the TA 1978, this was redrafted to in particular include obtaining services through electronic means
-It is restricted to services which were provided on the basis that they would be paid for. This offence would also seem to cover illegally downloading music
-Unlike fraud the offence requires the D to have actually obtained a service as a result of the dishonest act
-Conspiracy to defend:
-There was the debate which decided that the offence of conspiracy to defraud should not be abolished
(1) there have been cases which cast shadows on this element.
R v Hitchins: H was charged with assault on Brown. His defence was that he acted in self defence, in that he assaulted her to prevent her from allowing a man into her flat that he believed would go onto assault her. The judge ruled that a D could not rely on self defence in a case where the assault was against an innocent person in order to prevent an attack by a third party. However, his appeal was allowed, this case threatens to undermine the distinction that the law draws between duress and self defence
There is also doubt whether it is possible to use defence when protecting property. The answer is that what the jury consider as reasonable. The jury in the Martin case took the view that for Mr Martin to kill someone in order to protect his house was not reasonable
(2) The threat must be unjust, if Mark attacks Jim and Jim defends himself by using force on Mark, Mark cannot use further force against Jim and claim that it was self defence
(3) It must be necessary to use force. One must note that the D does not have a "duty to retreat". So if the jury decided it was unreasonable to try and retreat than ward off the attack, the D could still rely on the defence, the question is was it reasonable for the D to use force. The law also does permit a pre-emptive strike if to do so is reasonable. It is not absolutely necessary to show that the attack is immediate or imminent (such as if trying to escape when kidnapped) - however, vast majority of cases will require this
6. the accomplice is not liable if the principal does an act which is fundamentally different from that foreseen by the accomplice. With the case of English the principal's act was not foreseen by the accomplice and so it was "outside the scope of joint enterprise" this was also seen in the case of Rafferty: where the D foresaw that the principals would hit the victim, but they drowned him. This was seen as fundamentally different from hitting and so the D was not an accomplice to the killing
The fundamentally different rule applies only where the principal deliberately departs from the plan. So if the principal carries out the plan but accidentally someone else is injured then the accomplice can still be liable
7: Powell developed a special rule in relation to weapons, if the accomplice knew that the principle had a weapon with him or her then the accomplice is deemed to foresee that the P will use this weapon. It is not necessary to see exactly how the weapon will be used. If the accomplice knew that the principle had a weapon, but the principal used a weapon of a similar kind then the accomplice is still liable. This "weapons rule" creates only a presumption. In other words, the alleged accomplice will not be guilty if he or she can persuade the jury that even though he or she knew that the principal had a gun he or she did not foresee that the principal would use the gun
8: In Johnson v Youden: it was emphasised that the D must foresee or know circumstances of the act that render him a criminal
9: The accomplice must foresee that the principal will act with the necessary mens rea of the offence. So a D can be an accomplice to murder if he or she foresaw that the principal would oil with either an intent to kill or cause GBH.