This essay will deal with assessing the criminal liability of Dora.

Taking into consideration that Vanessa died in the scenario, Dora should be liable of murder.
However, she lacks the mens rea requirement for murder, ,,malice aforethought, which was
identified as ,,conscious intention to kill but also intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
1

Therefore ,Dora may be liable of constructive manslaughter.The following requirements need to be
proven: an unlawful act which must be dangerous, the act must be a crime by virtue of a positive act
and not an omission
2
and it must also be the cause of the victims death. According to the case law,
the unlawful act must constitute a criminal offence
3
and all the requirements for that particular
offence have to be met.
In this situation, Dora committed a section 47 offence, assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The
actus reus requirements are: an assault or battery, occasioned-whose meaning was defined in
Roberts
4
as caused- and actual bodily harm.
The battery offence was defined as: Any intentional [or subjectively reckless]touching of another
person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse.
5
For the battery offence, the
actus reus requires any unlawful touching, which can be carried out also through an object
6
and the
mens rea requires that the defendant must intend or be subjectively reckless as to inflict unlawful
personal violence on victim
7
.
Regarding the actual bodily harm, this amounts to any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the
health or comfort of the victim
8
, and includes a temporary loss of consciousness .
9


1
Attorney-Generals Reference(No 3 of 1994)[1997]3 ALL ER 936(HL), per Lord Mustill
2
R v Lowe[1973]1 ALL ER 805
3
R v Franklin [1883]15 COX CC 163
4
(1972) 56 Cr App R 95 CA
5
Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 3 All ER 468, 471 per Ld Lane CJ
6
R v Savage[1991]4 ALL ER 698 HL; Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner[1969]3 ALL ER 442
7
R v Venna[1975]3 ALL ER 788 CA
8
R v Miller[1954]2 QB 282
9
T v DPP [2003] EWHC 266
In order to prove the mens rea of s47 offence, the mens rea of battery need to be proved.The Savage
case established that the foresight of actual bodily harm is not required and that the subjective
recklessness or intention in relation to an assault/battery suffices.
The unlawful act must be dangerous. In assessing the danger,the court took an objective
approach
10
,thus it is not necessary that the defendant knew his act was unlawful or dangerous.
In R v Church
11
, the unlawful act was defined as:,, it must be such as all sober and reasonable people
would inevitably recognize must subject the other person to,at least,the risk of some harm resulting
therefrom albeit not serious harm.
The next requirement to prove is causation ,more specifically the factual and legal cause .In proving
the factual causation, the but for test must be applied: but for the actions of the defendant, would
the result have occurred?
Regarding the legal causation ,in R v Dalloway
12
it was established that the harm must result from a
culpable act.Also, the defendants act need not to be the sole or even the main cause of victims
death
13
, it needs only to contribute significantly to that result.In R v Smith
14
it was held thatonly if
the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it
be said that the death does not flow from the wound,so the defendants act need not be the sole
cause of the death but it must be a substantial, operating and significant cause.
However, in proving causation it must be established that there isnt any intervening act which will
break the chain.In R v Roberts
15
it was decided that an unexpected act by the victim, not foreseeable
by a reasonable man will break the chain of causation .This requirement of reasonableness and

10
DPP v Newbury Jones [1976]2 ALL ER 365 HL
11
[1965]2 ALL ER 72 CA
12
[1847]2 COX 273 CR
13
R v Pagett [1983] 76 CR APP R 279 CA
14
*1959+2 QB 35 Courts Martial Appeal Court
15
[1971]56 CR APP R 95 CA
foreseeability was also followed in R v Williams and Davis
16
, where Stuart Smith LJ stated that it must
be questioned if the deceaseds conduct was within the ambit of reasonableness and not so daft as
to make it his own voluntary act which broke the chain of causation. The jury should bear in mind any
particular characteristic of the victim and the fact that in the agony of the moment he might act
without thought and deliberation."
According to the egg shell skullrule, the victims unforeseen physical abnormalities will not break
the chain of causation. In R v Blaue
17
it was held that: those who use violence on other people must
take their victims as they find them.
Applying the rules to the facts : Dora committed a battery when she threw the book at Vanessa,
causing her actual bodily harm-the loss of conscience- and she also had the mens rea for s47
offence.This unlawful act was dangerous, hitting someone in the head involves some risk of harm.
According to the egg shell skull rule Vanessas previous brain injury doesnt break the chain of
causation. Also, leaving the hospital was not so unexpected that a reasonable man could not foresee,
and according to R v Williams and Davis case it wont break the chain of causation, because the
wound was still a substantial, operating and significant cause at the time of her death.
Also, Doreen is liable of robbery. A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before
or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so,he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put
any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
18

The first requirement for robbery-,,steals- involves that the actus reus requirements for theft are
established. A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another
with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
19


16
[1992]95CR APP R 1CA
17
[1975]3 ALL ER 446 CA
18
Theft Act 1968,s8(1)
19
Theft Act 1968, s1(1)
Appropriation was defined as Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an
appropriation[..] and in Morris
20
it was held that there is an appropriation where the defendant
assumes any of the owners rights.
S.4(1): Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action
and other intangible property.
Section 5-belonging to another: Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having
possession or control of it[..]. Possession means physical control and an intention to possess, while
control simply means physical control.
21
In R v Turner, it was held that: it is sufficient if it is found
that the person from whom the property is taken was at the time in fact in possession or control.
22

The second condition in establishing the actus reus of robbery is the use of threat or force. In
Dawson v James
23
it has held that there is no legal definition for force,but any amount of force will
suffice,even if it is just a push or nudge causing the victim to lose balance.
The force must be used immediately before or at the time of the stealing.The force is to be used in
order to steal. In Hale it was held that :To say that the conduct is over and done with as soon as he
lays his hands upon the property, or when he first manifests an intention to deal with it as his, is
contrary to common-sense and to the natural meaning of words the act of appropriation does not
suddenly cease. It is a continuous act.
24
Also, in R v Lockley
25
, following the Hale case, it was held
that force used in order to escape is thus treated as force used in order to steal.
Furthermore, force must be directed against any person.

20
[1983] 3 All ER 288, HL
21
Janet Loveless,Criminal Law:text,cases and materials,Oxford,3
rd
edition,p652
22
R v Turner(n02)[1971] 1WLR 901,per Lord ParkerCJ
23
[1976] 64 CR APP R 64
24
R v Hale[1978]68 CR APP R 415 CA, Eveleigh LJ, at 418
25
[1995]CLR 656 CA
Regarding the mens rea, the first element is dishonesty and the Ghosh test should be applied: Was
what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? Did
the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard what he did as dishonest?
The second requirement of mens rea is intention to permanently deprive. S6(1): A person
appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the
thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other
of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights, and a
borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a
period and in circumstances making it equivalent to outright taking or disposal.
In Lloyd
26
it was held that: a mere borrowing is never enough to constitute the necessary guilty
mind unless the intention is to return the thing in such a changed state that it can truly be said that
all its goodness or virtue has gone.
The last requirement in establishing the mens rea for robbery is the intention to use force in order to
steal.
Dora appropriated a tangible property-the book-which was belonging to Vanessa. Applying the
Ghosh test, her act was dishonest and she cannot rely on s2(1). Dora intended to return the book,
but she intended to do so when all its virtue and goodness had gone,because Vanessa needed that
book also for her examination in May.Therefore,she committed a theft.Furthermore,because she
used force on Vanessa in order to steal and because the appropriation can be a continuing act she
committed a robbery.
In conclusion, Dora is liable of constructive manslaughter and robbery.



26
[1985] QB 829, Lord Lane CJ, at 836
PART 2
The notion of appropriation was defined as:Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
amounts to an appropriation,and this includes,where he has come by the property(innocently or not)
without stealing it,any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as the owner. By
this definition,the Parliament tried to replace the old law,by adding more precision,certainty and by
providing a more effective system when dealing with property offences.However,the judges took a
wider approach when establishing the appropriation element and this notion has lost its meaning.In
this essay it will be examined how the actus reus requirement-the appropriation became a
meaningless concept.
The controversy around this notion began with the Lawrence case ,where it was held that an act
could amount to an appropriation regardless the owners consent.However,a few years later,in
Morris ,a case concerning switching labels for obtaining a product on a lower price,it was decided
that an appropriation is to be regarded as an adverse interference or an usurpation of any of the
owners rights .In this case,the judges interpreted assumption of the rights of an owner as any
rights of a owner,so even if the defendant assumes just one right,this amounts to an
appropriation.However,although this requirement seems easier to met,by just assuming one right,it
was decided that theft is committed when the owner has not given his consent to the appropriation
of the property.
But later on,in Gomez ,the judges followed Lawrence,considering Morris as wrong,and held that the
owners consent was irrelevant: there may be an assumption of a right and therefore an
appropriation of property although the owner consents to or authorizes the act in question.
In these two cases,because property was obtained by deceiving the owner,the theft offence was
found and the taking of the property which was consciously transferred to the defendant amounted
to an appropriation.This broadened its scope,obtaining property by deception being considered to
amount to appropriation.Also the distinction between theft and obtaining property by fraud was
dissolved .
After Gomez ,there is no more such as an act preparatory to appropriation, a mere act related to the
true owners property is appropriation, so,, theft is satisfied at much earlier stage. ,and
appropriation coincide with an assumption of any of the owners rights.For example,in Pitham v Hehl
,the defendant was found guilty of theft because he assumed the right of the owner to sell his
property.
Furthermore,more uncertainty related to the meaning of appropriation was created after the Hinks
case,where a valid gift,made by a vulnerable donor to a trusted person was considered to amount to
appropriation.In this case,the gift was a indefeasible title to a property,the donor no longer retaining
any proprietary interest in the property by transferring the title to the donee.Therefore,the scope of
appropriation was further extended ,because the validity of the gifts become irrelevant to the
appropriation requirement and if one dishonestly receives a gift,then it is considered to be theft if he
keeps it.Thus,it doesnt matter anymore if the defendants title to property is void,voidable or
unimpeachable,because it still can be an appropriation.
This approach taken by the judges resulted in a wider interpretation of appropriation which renders
this concept almost to a ,,vanishing point. Because of that, too much emphasis is placed now on the
mens rea requirement-,,dishonesty,so the theft will depend in most of the cases on finding it.The
scope of appropriation being too broad(assuming just one right of the owner,obtaining property by
deception and even valid gifts amount to appropriation), this requirement can be easily satisfied and
the only difference between acts that amount to theft and acts that dont is the element of
dishonesty.As a consequence, the concept of appropriation ,,lost significance,thus becoming a
neutral term satisfied by mere contact or omission.The dishonest appropriation concept
vanished,becoming merely dishonesty .If before these cases,the theft offence required
adishonest appropriation and that the dishonesty requirement was based on the wrongfulness of
the appropriation,now the two elements have been separated.For example,in Hinks ,it seems that
the appropriation no longer requires any wrongfulness in itself-there is no more such as,,dishonest
appropriation -,the wrongfulness being found in the defendants dishonesty alone.
This interpretation gives also room for inappropriate prosecution to take place,leading to absurd
and grotesque results ,making it more difficult for citizens to predict if their behavior will be
considered criminal or not.Thereby,a shop assistant who labels the goods in a shop or even a
customer who takes goods from the shelf are appropriating goods ,if the decision in Gomez is to be
followed,because:anyone by doing anything whatever to property belonging to another,with or
without the authority or consent of the owner,appropriates it.
Furthermore,the width reached by the appropriation after these cases goes beyond what Parliament
intended and what was discussed in the Eighth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee
,because the offence of theft and s15 offence-obtaining property by deception now overlap.Post-
Hinks,ownership passed under a voidable transfer now amounts to theft,contrary to the intention of
the draftsmen ,which related the offence of theft only with dishonest appropriation, not including
the deception element.

In conclusion, because of the wider interpretation of appropriation in Lawrence,Gomez and Hinks,
the concept lost its value and became a meaning-free notion.This raised a lot of concerns,because
the broad scope of this actus reus element has a a lot of disadvantages,and the most criticized aspect
of this problem is that the weight of theft charges should not rest on dishonesty alone ,in
establishing the actus reus of theft it should not be relied so much on mens rea,because the actus
reus and the mens rea are separate elements of the offence.



BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Janet LovelessCriminal Law:text,cases and materials,Oxford,3rd edition
J .C.Smith,The law of theft,Butterworths,7th edition

JOURNALS
Simon Parsons ,Dishonest appropriation after Gomez and Hinks, Journal of Criminal Law
2004
Stephen Shute ,Appropriation and the law of theft, Crim. L.R. 2002, Jun, 445-458
Tobias Olliver Haynes, Theft A Simple Offence Overcomplicated, Criminal Law and Justice
Weekly, (2013) 177 JPN 440

STATUTE
The Theft Act 1968