Offences against property

Criminal Law – Offences Against Property (Cambridge A‑Level Law 9084)

1. English Legal System (Syllabus 1.1–1.3)

1.1 Sources of Law

• Legislation – primary (Acts of Parliament) and secondary (Statutory Instruments, Orders).
• Common law / case law – developed by judges; fills gaps in legislation.
• European Union law – retained EU law (post‑Brexit) still influences certain areas.
• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998.

1.2 Statutory Interpretation

• Literal rule – give words their ordinary meaning.
• Golden (or purposive) rule – interpret to avoid absurd results.
• Mischief rule (Heydon’s) – consider the law’s purpose and the problem it intended to remedy.
• Modern purposive approach – look at the whole context, including parliamentary debates (Hansard) and explanatory notes.

1.3 Judicial Precedent

• Hierarchy of courts: Supreme Court → Court of Appeal → High Court (King’s Bench, Chancery, Family) → Crown Court → Magistrates’ Court.
• Binding precedent (ratio decidendi) – lower courts must follow decisions of higher courts in the same jurisdiction.
• Persuasive authority – decisions of courts of equal or lower rank, or from other jurisdictions.
• Distinguishing cases, overruling, and per incuriam (overlooked law) are ways precedent can change.

1.4 Courts, Police Powers & Legal Personnel

• Magistrates’ Court – summary offences, preliminary hearings for indictable offences.
• Crown Court – trials for indictable offences, sentencing.
• Court of Appeal & Supreme Court – points of law and appellate review.
• Police powers – stop & search, arrest without warrant (necessity test), cautioning.
• Legal personnel – Police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), solicitors, barristers, judges.

---

2. Elements of a Crime (Syllabus 2.1)

2.1 Actus Reus

• Conduct – a voluntary act or omission where a legal duty to act exists.
• Consequences – the result the law seeks to prevent (e.g., loss of property).
• Causation
  • Factual causation – “but‑for” test.
  • Legal causation – reasonable foreseeability / proximate cause.
• Omissions – liability only where a duty to act arises (statutory duty, contract, relationship, creation of risk, or voluntary assumption of care).

2.2 Mens Rea

• Intention – purpose (direct) or virtual certainty (oblique).
• Knowledge – awareness of a relevant fact (e.g., knowledge that goods are stolen).
• Recklessness – conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk (subjective test from R v G [2003]).
• Negligence – failure to meet the standard of care of a reasonable person.

2.3 Strict / Absolute Liability

• Strict liability – actus reus sufficient; mens rea not required (e.g., some regulatory offences).
• Absolute liability – no defence of mistake or intoxication (e.g., traffic offences).

---

3. Offences Against Property (Syllabus 2.2)

3.1 Theft – s 1 Theft Act 1968

Statutory elements

1. Dishonesty – Ivey test (Supreme Court, R v Ivey [2017] UKSC 67): (a) ordinary standards of reasonable people; (b) defendant’s awareness that he was acting dishonestly.
2. Appropriation – s 3: any assumption of the rights of the owner, however trivial.
3. Property – s 4: money, tangible goods, intangible assets (e.g., digital data), or any “thing” capable of ownership.
4. Belonging to another – s 5: includes anyone with a proprietary right, not just the legal owner.
5. Intention to permanently deprive – s 6: (a) treat the thing as one’s own to keep, or (b) treat it as “disposed of” (e.g., destroy or sell).

Key cases

• R v Ivey (2017) – current test for dishonesty.
• R v Hinks (2000) – receipt of property obtained by fraud can be theft where appropriation is dishonest.
• R v Oxford (1979) – consent obtained by deception still amounts to appropriation.

Sentencing (s 7 Theft Act 1968)

• Maximum: 7 years’ imprisonment (or fine, or both).
• Guidelines consider value, planning, breach of trust, prior convictions, and remorse.

3.2 Robbery – s 8 Theft Act 1968

Actus reus

1. All elements of theft (see 3.1).
2. Use of, or threat of, violence (or force) on any person.
3. Violence must be used **immediately before, during or after** the theft (s 8(2)).

Mens rea

• Dishonesty (Ivey test).
• Intention to permanently deprive.
• Intent to use or threaten violence (the defendant must intend the violence that is used or threatened).

Key cases

• R v Dawson (1985) – a mere threat, even if not carried out, satisfies the violence element.
• R v McLeod (1991) – “use of force” includes exerting pressure to obtain property.

Sentencing

• Maximum: life imprisonment (s 8(2) Theft Act 1968).
• Aggravating factors: weapon, serious injury, repeat offending, use of a vehicle.

3.3 Burglary – s 9 & 10 Theft Act 1968

Core offence (s 9)

1. Entering a building or part of a building **as a trespasser**.
2. With intent to:
   • Steal,
   • Inflict grievous bodily harm (GBH), or
   • Cause unlawful damage to property.

Alternative form (s 9(1)(b))

Having entered as a trespasser with the above intent, the defendant actually commits or attempts to commit one of those offences.

Aggravated burglary (s 10)

• Same actus reus as ordinary burglary plus the presence of a weapon (or an imitation weapon) or a firearm.
• Maximum sentence: up to **life imprisonment** (s 10(2)).

Statutory definitions

• Building – s 9(4): any structure, including a tent, vehicle, ship or part of a vehicle.
• Trespasser – a person who enters without permission or a legal right to be there.

Key cases

• R v Collins (1973) – clarified “entry” (any physical intrusion) and “trespasser” (lack of consent).
• R v Brown (1996) – affirmed that the requisite “intent” must exist at the moment of entry.

Sentencing (s 9(3) Theft Act 1968)

• Non‑aggravated burglary: up to **14 years** imprisonment.
• Aggravated burglary (s 10): up to **life imprisonment**.

3.4 Blackmail – s 21 Theft Act 1968

Actus reus

1. Demanding another to do, or refrain from doing, any act.
2. The demand is made with menacing (a threat of unlawful harm, loss, or exposure).

Mens rea

• Intent to gain for oneself or another, or intent to cause loss to the victim.
• Knowledge that the demand is made with menacing.

Key cases

• R v H (1975) – “menace” includes threats of violence, unlawful detention, or exposing confidential information.
• R v Miller (1998) – a demand for a “reasonable” sum can still be blackmail if made under threat.

Sentencing (s 21(2) Theft Act 1968)

• Maximum: 14 years’ imprisonment.
• Typical range: 2–5 years, depending on seriousness of the threat and amount demanded.

3.5 Handling Stolen Goods – s 22 Theft Act 1968

Actus reus

1. Receiving, retaining, or disposing of goods that are known to be stolen.
2. “Goods” include any tangible or intangible property that can be owned.

Mens rea

• Knowledge that the goods are stolen – actual knowledge or willful blindness.
• Intention to benefit oneself or another (including a third party).

Key cases

• R v Turner (1975) – “knowledge” includes willful blindness (deliberate ignorance).
• R v S (2005) – constructive knowledge (reasonable suspicion) is insufficient without actual knowledge or wilful blindness.

Sentencing (s 22 Theft Act 1968)

• Maximum on indictment: 14 years’ imprisonment.
• Summary conviction: up to 6 months’ imprisonment or a fine (or both).

3.6 Making Off Without Payment – s 3 Theft Act 1978

Actus reus

1. Leaving a shop or other place of trade having obtained goods or services on the basis that payment would be made.
2. Leaving with the *intent* not to pay.

Mens rea

• Intent to make no payment (or to pay less than the agreed amount).

Key case

• R v Smith (1976) – the offence is complete the moment the defendant departs with the dishonest intention, even if the goods are later recovered.

Sentencing (s 4 Theft Act 1978)

• Summary offence – maximum 6 months’ imprisonment or a fine (or both).
• On indictment (rare) the maximum is 5 years** (if proceeded as an either‑way offence).

3.7 Criminal Damage – s 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971

Actus reus (s 1)

1. Destruction or damage to property belonging to another.
2. “Damage” includes any impairment of the property’s value, utility, or appearance.

Mens rea

• Intention to destroy or damage, or recklessness as to whether such damage would occur (see R v G [2003] EWCA Crim 1277).

Related offences (s 2‑s 5)

• s 2 – Threats to destroy or damage property: up to **2 years** imprisonment on indictment.
• s 3 – Possessing anything with intent to destroy or damage: up to **2 years** imprisonment on indictment.
• s 5 – Defence of “lawful excuse”: belief of ownership, belief that the act was necessary to protect life/property, or compliance with a statutory authority.

Key cases

• R v Cunningham (1957) – defined “malicious” as recklessness, forming the basis for the mens rea in s 1.
• R v G (2003) – modern test for recklessness: subjective awareness of a risk and proceeding anyway.

Sentencing (s 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971)

• Maximum: 10 years’ imprisonment (or a fine, or both).
• For s 2 and s 3 the maximum is **2 years**.

3.8 Fraud – Fraud Act 2006

Section	Actus reus	Mens rea
2 – Fraud by false representation	Making a false representation (by words, conduct or implied), dishonestly, that a fact is true.	Dishonesty (Ivey test) + intention to make a gain for oneself or another, or to cause loss to another.
3 – Fraud by failing to disclose information	Dishonestly failing to disclose a relevant fact when there is a legal duty to do so.	Dishonesty + intention to make a gain or cause a loss (as above).
4 – Fraud by abuse of position	Abusing a position of trust (e.g., employee, solicitor) to obtain a gain.	Dishonesty + intention to make a gain or cause a loss.
11 – Obtaining services dishonestly	Dishonestly obtaining services (e.g., free meals, transport) without paying.	Dishonesty + intention to obtain the services for oneself or another.

Key cases

• R v Ghosh (replaced by Ivey) – historically used to test dishonesty.
• R v Saik (2006) – first convictions under the Fraud Act for false representation.

Sentencing

• Maximum for any fraud offence: 10 years’ imprisonment (or a fine, or both) – s 2‑4, 11.
• Sentencing guidelines consider the amount of loss, vulnerability of the victim, planning, and any breach of trust.

---

4. Sentencing in England & Wales (Syllabus 2.3)

4.1 Aims of Sentencing

• Punishment – retributive response to wrongdoing.
• Deterrence – specific (individual) and general (society).
• Rehabilitation – address underlying causes of offending.
• Protection of the public – incapacitation of dangerous offenders.
• Reparation – restitution to victims.

4.2 Categories of Sentence (adult)

• Disposals – fines, community orders, conditional discharges.
• Custodial sentences – imprisonment (determinate, life) and suspended sentences.
• Ancillary orders – restraining orders, disqualification orders, compensation orders.

4.3 Sentencing Guidelines (Sentencing Council)

• Each offence has a *starting point* based on seriousness.
• Adjustments:
  • Aggravating factors – previous convictions, use of a weapon, planning, vulnerability of victim.
  • Mitigating factors – remorse, early guilty plea, age, mental health.
• Guidelines are advisory but must be considered; failure to follow them may lead to a “departure” and a higher or lower sentence.

4.4 Young Offenders (under 18)

• Youth Caution – formal warning for low‑level offences.
• Youth Conditional Caution – includes a rehabilitative activity.
• Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO) – community‑based order with requirements (e.g., unpaid work, treatment).
• Detention and training orders – custodial sentences for serious offences (up to 24 months).

---

5. Law of Contract (Syllabus 3.1–3.4)

5.1 Formation of a Contract

• Offer – clear, unequivocal, intended to be binding upon acceptance.
• Acceptance – unconditional agreement communicated in the prescribed manner (mirror image rule).
• Consideration – something of value exchanged; must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
• Intention to create legal relations – presumed in commercial agreements; presumed absent in social/domestic arrangements.
• Relevant cases: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (offer to the world, unilateral contract); Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp (instantaneous communication & acceptance).

5.2 Terms of a Contract

• Conditions – essential terms; breach allows repudiation and damages.
• Warranties – less essential; breach gives right to damages only.
• Innominate terms – classification depends on the seriousness of the breach (e.g., Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha).
• Terms can be expressed (written or oral) or implied (by fact, by law, or by custom).

5.3 Discharge of Contracts

• Performance – complete or substantial performance.
• Agreement – mutual rescission, accord & satisfaction.
• Frustration – an unforeseen event destroys the contractual basis (e.g., Taylor v Caldwell).
• Breach – repudiatory breach allows the innocent party to terminate; minor breach only gives right to damages.

5.4 Remedies

• Damages
  • Compensatory – put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the contract performed.
  • Consequential – loss flowing from the breach (e.g., lost profits).
  • Nominal – token sum where a legal right is infringed but no loss.
  • Punitive (or exemplary) – rare, only for oppressive conduct.
• Specific Performance – equitable remedy forcing performance; granted where damages are inadequate (e.g., unique goods).
• Injunction – prohibitory or mandatory order to prevent breach.
• Rescission – set the contract aside (e.g., misrepresentation, mistake).
• Restitution – return of benefit conferred.

---

6. Quick Reference Table – Property Offences (Statutory Section / Max Sentence)

Offence	Statutory Provision	Maximum Sentence
Theft	s 1 Theft Act 1968	7 years’ imprisonment
Robbery	s 8 Theft Act 1968	Life imprisonment
Burglary (non‑aggravated)	s 9 Theft Act 1968	14 years’ imprisonment
Aggravated burglary	s 10 Theft Act 1968	Life imprisonment
Blackmail	s 21 Theft Act 1968	14 years’ imprisonment
Handling stolen goods	s 22 Theft Act 1968	14 years’ imprisonment (indictment)
Making off without payment	s 3 Theft Act 1978	6 months (summary); up to 5 years if indicted
Criminal damage	s 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971	10 years’ imprisonment
Fraud (any provision)	Fraud Act 2006 ss 2, 3, 4, 11	10 years’ imprisonment

---

7. How the Topics Fit Together

• The **English legal system** provides the framework in which the offences are defined, interpreted, and enforced.
• Understanding **act + mens rea** is essential for analysing each property offence.
• **Sentencing** translates the seriousness of the conduct (as identified by the elements and case law) into a punishment that meets the aims of the criminal justice system.
• While the focus here is on property offences, the same analytical tools apply to other areas of criminal law and to civil law (e.g., contract disputes).