UNIT 4: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW!

Hi law lovers (or people who want to smash the exams - or both!) this is all my hard earned tips I have concucted throughout the year <3

Unit 4 pointers
General	-          BREATHE – READ ONCE FIRST, THEN AGAIN – REFLECT – ORGANISE OFFENCES -          Don’t forget three defences, intox, duress and self defence -          DON’T OVER ANALYSE OR MAKE RANDOM ASSUMPTIONS OR GO TO IN DEPTH – IF ITS THEFT ITS THEFT MOVE ON -          MAKE SURE I SAY THAT THERE IS A DEFENCE TO BOTH OFFENCES OR MAKE CLEAR WHICH OFFENCE IM ON ABOUT I REGARD TO WHICH DEFENCE -          Questions are purposely vague and nitpicky so make sure you talk about all the offences that spring to mind bcos usually highest marks go to students to notice the little things -          Take at least 5 minutes reading and planning time to think through your answer and jot down the offences rose – also read through once entirely to get a picture of what’s going on then the second read annotate and start to plan. Also highlight and focus on the person in the questions liability -          Don’t forget common sense- not everything will be entirely theft but do analyse closely -          Remember to gloss over certain aspects that aren’t in doubt to show an awareness but go into detail with the issues that are raised -          To get A/A* you need to be rigorous with sections and subsections and following plans for each offence with realisation of exceptions and cases to always back things up. -          Always be selective and apply criminal law that is of relevance – examiners hate the devotion of excessive time and detail to unimportant aspects -          Focus on facts and relate to the correct person in Q -          Theft should always be examined first -          Don’t repeat things already mentioned from theft e.g. dishonesty -          Generally, where dishonesty is concerned look out for things like “he thought the meal was rubbish” or “norma overcharged him last time” that could arouse a discussion of D NOT being honest MAKE SURE YOU CLARIFY WHAT DEFENCES APPLY TO WHAT CLEARLY!!!! BOTH OR ALL OR ONE???
Theft s1	-          Theft can occur even if the defendant does succeed at taking anything, or doesn’t actually take anything at all. It can also be temporary. It occurs regardless of what the defendant desires to do with that property afterwards! -          Don’t forget to clarify BTA – if it’s been dropped on the floor they aren’t in possession or control of it anymore but rather had it in their proprietary right or interest. -          OMG DON’T FORGET EASOM/CONSENT IS RELLEVANT -          Don’t forget to always mention consent if it’s in the scenario! -           So long as appropriation has taken place and one of the owners rights has been assumed AND all the other element for theft are satisfied then theft has occurred -          If D has dropped something on the floor or lost it he doesn’t have possession of it but rather a proprietary right or interest in it SO CLARRIFY WHICH ONE IT COMES UNDER ACCORDING TO S5(1) -          Property is only abandoned if there is neither true legal  OR they had an intention (Rickets v Basildon magistrates)nor anyone in possession or control – so it still remains BTA If the defendant has control over it, or  ‘control of the site’. Woodman – had the fences around it, so it could suggest that he was in control of everything. Debate is needed however. -          Theft still occurs even if the defendant doesn’t damage anything, or even take it. If they do anything that assumes the right then its fine, even albeit temporary theft! -          PROPERTY THROWN AWAY CAN BE REGARDED AS BEING OWNED BY THE COUNCIL, OR REFUSE COLLECTOR Williams v Phillips ! -          Abandonment? Small, Does D have a genuine belief that there is no true legal owner? Is there? Small, Ricketts v Basildon Mag -          Lost property? Has it become ownerless where D believes he can’t trace them? -          Don’t forget s 3 1 keeping or dealing with it – examiners love this -          Look out for tricky scenarios where theft can occur if someone has damaged property as this is actually an appropriation, “assuming an owners right” to destroy, R v Morris. Also look out for scenarios where D has hired out, lent, offered to sell, broken, etc. -          You need to always be clear as to when and where appropriation has occurred -          Remember the exceptions for s4(3) and 4(4) property -          Talk about theft before robbery -          Logical approach is too consider theft before burglary -          Always identify the precise moment theft has occurred -          Remember under 5(3), just because v is the owner, doesn’t mean the property in question can’t be temporarily be held under ownership by v (if it’s received under obligation) -          Even if d doesn’t aim for v to permanently loose the property in question, still IDP if he has an “intention to treat the thing as his own, to dispose regardless of the others rights” -          Don’t forget s2(2) a person may dishonestly app prop belonging  to another notwithstanding he will pay for the property -          Property lost remains belonging to the looser, yet it wont unless its intentionally abandoned – proprietary right or interest is not lost by temporary loosing of property
Burglary s9	-          Burglary - Questions usually talk about more than one offence so look carefully at the timing of men’s rea especially if criminal damage occurs. If d causes CD but there is no men’s rea at the time of entry then he can’t be guilty under 91a (and definitely not 91b as that doesn’t include CD) – it’s just criminal damage -          It can still be burglary even if the defendant doesn’t commit an ulterior offence since he only needs an intention to do one of the three things! -          Usually both b and a have occurred so look closely! -          Always numerous offences going on to take time to pick them out for discussion -          Don’t forget Jones & smith – d can be invited in but has to exceed scope of permission to have part of the AR -          Always make sure you mention how the defendant has entered the building -          Always define building or part before applying the law to the scenario  - I D A
Robbery s8	-          Force or use of force can be implied like a gang ganging up or closing in on you,  B +R v DPP -          Remember that if the force isn’t used to obtain that property/ “ in order to steal” it’s not robbery -          Doesn’t matter how force is achieved (silence, word, ganging up, holding someone at gun point) as long as it has occurred -          Force can be implied -          No need to prove D felt threatened or that he could carry out the force -          No need for the theft to be from the person who is being threatened (e.g. D hold V at gunpoint telling them to steal money from till in the bank) -          Remember that if d decides to steal after they have had a fight with v in general it isn’t robbery as it hasn’t occurred before or at the time nor was it done in order to steal -          USE OF FORCE CAN BE ON ANY PERSON doesn’t have to be on the person they intend to steal from e.g. the person doesn’t need to own what D aims to steal
Blackmail s21	-          Don’t  confuse reasonable with proper -          Reasonable is concerned with whether he had a right in that situation -          When discussing unwarranted ITS SUBJECTIVE and It’s important to realise that the question is whether D believed the circumstances he is providing is correct – immaterial to what we or others actually think -          Thorne v MTA – menaces is to be liberally construed, it does not have to be a serious threat at all (pomroy) and it doesn’t need to be of violence, according to LW it can be “any threat of action that is detrimental and unpleasant to the person addressed” -          In R v Harvey, Bingham states that s21(1) “it matters not what the reasonable person … would believe” reinforcing this as a subjective test.
Fraud s1 FA 2006 and OOS s11	-          Know the precise wording of the statute and don’t confuse with s11 -          Important to know the precise wording of this also -          Only occurs if the defendant obtains something by an act, however they can’t just intend something -          Where D goes to sit down and eat -          A lot of the time the false representation can be really hidden in the text so don’t forget all the cases where D can make a false representation e.g. going to the dry cleaners and intending not pay – false rep of mind! He needs to act or make a statement or pretend to do something which goes against his true intentions – or has to simple lie
Making off s3 theft act 1968 Criminal damage s1 TCDA 1971 4C Intoxication Self defence Duress	-          Might not be deemed “dishonest” if meal is crap or its overcharged -          Remember this can literally be anywhere e.g. using someone’s ticket in a football stadium when doing an entrance fee, or at a shop counter, or in a taxi etc -          Men’s rea doesn’t require dishonesty -          Don’t forget lawful excuse 53 and usually both -          Always consider possibility of endangering life – don’t forget weird example of Merrick existing -          Arson can be committed by an omission – miller -          Don’t forget consideration of burglary(although should of spoken about it before) AND of theft – destroying property = appropriation if he has rest of elements satisfied -          Don’t attempt first you risk wasting too much time! -          PLAN for 15 min’s as questions won’t always follow exact same format- detailed in case you also run out of time -          Make sure you save yourself an hour and have neat handwriting, no spelling mistakes etc. -           Aggravated is reduced to basic criminal damage – don’t forget -          Usually only occurs when D has caused D injury when carrying out a robbery or s91b burglary, or caused criminal damage in the process -          Don’t forget that police intervention can sometimes be ineffective – Hudson v Taylor -          Don’t forget no defence if D is drunk -          Don’t forget that drug addict under reasonable firmness -          Don’t forget the saying that voluntary membership of violent associations is foresight of being exposed to the risk of compulsion and co-ercion by threats of violence to do ANYHING – Hasan/sharp