Theft and Robbery : Christian Khan Solicitors, London UK.

Theft

A person will be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other person of it.

Theft is triable either way. It is recommended that it should be tried summarily unless the magistrates consider their sentencing powers inadequate and one of the following factors is present:

Breach of trust by a person in authority or in whom a high degree of trust is placed;
The theft is disguised or has been committed in a sophisticated manner;
Commission of the offence by an organised gang;
The victim is particularly vulnerable;
The unrecovered property is worth at least £10,000

Dishonesty

The defendant must be dishonest according to the standards of a reasonable person, and must know that he is acting in a dishonest way.

Appropriation

This means assuming any of the rights that only the lawful owner of the property in question may exercise. It therefore extends not only to taking, but also to (for example) modifying, lending, destroying, or renting out the property in question.

Property

This means all property, both tangible and intangible. However, the circumstances in which land, buildings, and things that form part of the land can be stolen are restricted. There are also restrictions regarding wild animals.

Information and electricity cannot be stolen; however, it is an offence to abstract electricity.

Belonging to Another

This includes property belonging to the defendant, but in the lawful custody of another, meaning that it is possible to steal one's own property.

Lost property is considered to belong to its rightful owner, even if the identity of that owner cannot be ascertained. However, abandoned property belongs to nobody, and thus cannot be stolen.

Intention to Permanently Deprive

This obviously includes an intention to never return the property, but also extends to circumstances where the property is returned, but in a state in which it is of no use to its owner. This may, for example, be because it has been damaged, or because it is returned after the owner has ceased to have any use for it.

Defences

A failure to prove any of the 5 elements described above will mean that the defendant cannot be convicted of theft. For example, a genuine belief on the part of the defendant that he was entitled to take the property, or that it belonged to him, will disprove the element of dishonesty An intention to return the property will also be a potential defence, as it will disprove the intent to permanently deprive. Failure on the part of the prosecution to address any of these elements may even lead to a case being discontinued at the half-way point due to there being no case to answer.

Sentencing

The maximum sentence is 7 years' imprisonment. There are also specific sentencing guidelines for theft in breach of trust, theft from a dwelling, theft from the person, and theft from a shop.

Robbery and Assault With Intent to Rob

Robbery is committed where a defendant commits theft, and immediately before, or at the time of doing so, he uses force, or the threat of force, in order to effect the theft.

It is important to note that this definition does not cover force used after the theft, or force that is unconnected with the theft.

Where force is used, but the theft is not effected, the defendant may instead be found guilty of assault with intent to rob.

Defences

For robbery to be committed, theft must also be committed, so any failure to prove an element of theft will lead to an acquittal for robbery.

Sentencing

Robbery and assault with intent to rob are triable only on indictment, and carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Factors that will affect the final sentence include the value of property stolen, the nature of violence used, whether a weapon is used, whether the victim is vulnerable, and whether the robbery was planned or carried out in a professional manner.

Key Cases

Kelly [1999] QB 621
Human bodies are not property unless they have acquired different attributes by virtue of the application of skill, such as dissection or preservation techniques, for exhibition or teaching purposes

Turner (No. 2) [1871] 1 WLR 901
In this case the defendant sent his car to a garage, then came back during the night with his spare key and took it without paying for the work done. The court held that because the garage held the car as security against payment, it had a sufficient interest in the car to satisfy the "belonging to another" test. Thus, the defendant was capable of stealing his own property.

Corcoran v Whent [1977] Crim LR 52
The property must belong to another at the time of appropriation. Thus, there can be no theft if a defendant decides not to pay for a meal only after he has eaten it. However, such circumstances are catered for by the offence of making off without payment.

McHugh (1993) 97 Cr App R 335
If there was an intention to permanently deprive at the time of the appropriation of property, it is no defence if the defendant subsequently changes his mind and decides to give it back.

Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299
A defendant who takes money with the intention to pay back an equivalent sum will only have no intention to permanently deprive if he intends to return the very same notes or coins that he has taken.

::Christian Khan Solicitors