Dodger was a pickpocket. He entered a branch of the MidWest bank and waited for a customer to make a large withdrawal of cash. Mrs Pendlebury entered the bank and withdrew £500. She put the money in an envelope and put the envelope into her bag.
While she was distracted, Dodger picked the envelope from her bag. Mrs Pendlebury realised what had happened and screamed for assistance. Dodger dropped the money and ran out of the bank. Trevor , an employee of the bank, tried to block Dodger’s escape. Dodger pushed Trevor who fell and suffered a slight injury.Dodger hailed a taxi and asked the taxi driver to take him to the station. When they arrived at the station, Dodger asked if he could pay by cheque. The taxi driver reluctantly agreed. Dodger “paid” the fare with a stolen cheque.
Discuss Dodger’s criminal liability.
Burglary s9(1)(a)
Dodger may be convicted of burglary contrary to s9(1)a of the Theft Act 1968. This provides that a person commits burglary if he enters a building as a trespasser with intent to commit one of a number of specified offences, including theft s9(2).
A person enters as a trespasser if he enters without consent or permission. Although there is an implied permission to enter a bank, this is restricted to particular lawful purposes. As Dodger entered the building intending to steal, he entered beyond the implied permission given R v Jones and Smith and, as he knew of the facts that made his entry trespassory, he entered with the appropriate mens rea.
Dodger did not intend to steal specific property from a particular individual when he entered the bank. However, Dodger may be convicted of burglary s9(1)(a) if he intended to steal something in the building, even though at the time of entry, he had no specific item in mind. Attorney General’s references Nos 1 &2 it was held that an intention to steal, conditional on there being money in the building, would suffice for burglary.
Theft
When Dodger took the money from Mrs Pendlebury’s bag, he committed theft contrary to s1 of the Theft Act 1968. In Corcoran v Anderton two youths snatched a bag from a woman. It was held appropriation took place at the moment they snatched it from her grasp.
The fact that Dodger did not manage to keep possession of the money makes no difference to his liability. Theft requires an intention to permanently deprive; there is no requirement of permanent deprivation in fact. At this point he also committed burglary s9(1)(b) theft act 1968.
Burglary s9(1)(b)
Provides that a person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building as a trespasser, he commits one of a number of specified offences, including theft.
It must be shown that the defendant entered as a trespasser and at the time of the theft he knew or was at least reckless with respect to the facts that made his entry trespassory.
Robbery
Robbery under s8 of the Theft Act 1968 requires the use or threat of force on any person in order to steal. There is no evidence that he used force on Mrs Pendlebury when he stole the envelope from her bag. Furthermore, although for the purposes of robbery the force may be used on any person and not necessarily the person from whom the property was stolen, the force used against Trevor, it is submitted, would not suffice for robbery. S8 requires that the force is used “immediately before or at the time of the theft” and “in order to steal”. Dodger applied force to Trevor after the theft and did no in order to escape and not to steal James.
In Hale it was said that an appropriation is a continuing act and that a person may be guilty of robbery when he uses force as he makes off with the property. The Court of Appeal held that the question of whether the theft has come to an end is one for the jury . In Hale, however, the defendants still had possession of the property as they made their getaway. In the case of Dodger, the theft clearly came to an end when he dropped the envelope.
Assaults
Dodger may be convicted of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s47 of the OAPA 1861. The section requires that the defendant committed an assault or a battery which resulted in actual bodily harm (DPP v Little).
When Dodger pushed Trevor in order to escape, he committed a battery. A battery is the intentional or reckless infliction of unlawful personal force on any person.
Actual bodily harm was defined in Miller includesany hurt or injury which interferes with the health or comfort of the victim and this would include minor bruising.
Under s47 the actus reus requires that ABH however the HL in Savage and Parmenter held that as far as the mens rea for the offence it is not necessary to prove that the accused intended or foresaw actual bodily harm all that is required is intention or recklessness with respect to the application of force. Recklessness in this context is the Cunningham subjective test.
Thus, as he intentionally applied force to Trevor and Trevor suffered actual bodily harm as a result. Dodger may be convicted of the offence under s47 punishable with a maximum of five year’s imprisonment.
There would be no criminal liability under either s18 or s20 of the 1861 Act. To amount to a “wound” the inner and outer skin must be broken; Eisenhower a bruise is not a wound and so no jury would consider the injuries suffered by Trevor to be serious.
Obtaining services by deception
Dodger maybe guilty of obtaining services dishonestly s11 Fraud Act. If when he hired the taxi Dodger intended to use the stolen cheque to pay the fare then he acquired the service by a dishonest act and the taxi ride was provided on the basis that payment would be made and that payment is not made.
Making off without payment
This offence is defined under s3(1) of Theft Act 1968. The issue could be that it is unclear whether a person can be said to have made off without payment if he left with the consent of the creditor, but that consent was obtained by deception, here the taxi driver “accepts” a stolen cheque. In R v Brooks and Brooks leaving a worthless cheque would constitute making off.( Note a promise to pay later is not making off but obtaining services dishonestly s11 fraud Act 2006). Dodger committed the actus reus on leaving the taxi. The mens rea is the application of the Ghosh test, if both ordinary honest people thought his actions were both reasonable and honest then he would be acquitted.
If Dodger was genuinely believed that payment was not expected or that Dodger intended to pay later then this to would acquit Dodger.
No comments:
Post a Comment