The Criminal Jus,ce (The2 and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 replaced the Larceny Acts 1916-1990.

The- (s.4 of the 2001 Act)

s.4(1) - Someone is guilty of the- if they ‘dishonestly appropriate’ someones property without their
consent and with the intenCon of depriving the owner of the property.

Actus reus →
(i) appropriates (s.4(5) - usurp or adversely interfere with the proprietary rights of the owner of the
property i.e. the do not need to take ownership/physically have the property, just possession)
(ii) Depriva,on ( лишение) (s.4(5) temporarily or permanently
(iii) property defined by (s.2(1) - ‘money and all other property, real or personal, including things in
acCon and other intangible property)
(iv) owner did not consent - (s.2(4) defines owner widely

Ownership

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs v Campbell
Hibbert v McKiernan
A person possesses something is s/he enjoys
actual or construc5ve control and has
knowledge of such control.
ProsecuCon could not prove accused was aware of
the existence of the tv, that he lived in the house,
or that he had control over the person living in the
house.
It is possible to steal from more than one owner,
but also means it's possible for one part owner to
steal from another part owner.
It can be an offence to steal apparently
abandoned property.
Apparently abandoned golf balls were owned
jointly by the members of the golf club.

Without consent of owner

DPP v Valen<ne Prosecu5on must prove 2 things:

(i) Must prove the person from whom the
goods were stolen was a legal person
(ii) and that they claimed ownership over
the goods in quesCon.

DPP (Mulcahy) v Johnston & Gibbins
Providing the informal name (Boots Tallaght),
rather than Boots Ltd Ireland, demonstrated
sufficient evidence regarding the ownership and
the charges could proceed.
Issue: Must the charge sheet precisely set out the
name of corporate owner or will the informal name
by which the corporate enCty is commonly or
popularly known suffice?
 Consent must be given on ‘free and informed’
exercise of will. i.e. coercion, force or decepCon
will not amount to true consent.

R v Middleton Post office clerk accidentally overpaid the

defendant. The defendant realized the other’s
mistake when he too the money but said nothing.
Held: he was guilty of larceny ( because he was
aware of it). (воровство)
AG s Ref Accused’s salary was paid into her bank account by
direct debit. On one occasion she was overpaid
74.74 pounds. She was acquiced a trial level. AG
referred a point of law to the CA.
Issue: If an accused dishonestly decided not to
repay this amount would they be guilty of the-?
Yes!
DPP v Smith Accused found guilty of the- for not giving back
money which was given to him as a mistake. This is
because consent was a mistake and the claimant
had accidentally added a decimal point without
knowing.
R v Singh • Over a period of two-years, £766,098
was erroneously deposited in Singh’s account
• When the company realised its error (thought he
was a different client), they sought to reclaim the
money
• Ignored their efforts, money not repaid (although
majority unspent)
• He was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment

DPP v Morrisey • a customer in a supermarket ordered and was

given a quanCty of meat at the meat counter
• he then le- the supermarket without paying for it
• held: the owner of the meat parted with
possession of it not ownership of it
• Gannon J provides examples of evidence from
which the presence fraudulent intent can be
inferred
• suggested that not guilty of larceny unCl le-
shop

People (DPP) v Kea-ng the accused, along with two others, took clothes
from the women's department in Roches in Cork.
They were seen acCng suspiciously and were
apprehended before leaving the store. The defense
claimed that the the- was not completed since
they were caught before exiCng the store.
However, the court held that the offense was
considered complete when the goods were
removed from the shelf with the intent to steal,
even if they hadn't le2 the store yet.
AG v Tothova Similar to Kea<ng but did not cite it.
 The- ExcepCons (s.5 of the 2001 Act)

s.5(4) - picking wildflowers from ones land is not the-, unless for sale or other commercial purpose.
s.5(5) - Stealing an animal from a zoo is the-.

R v Townley • a poacher killed some rabbits

• he then stored them in various places around the
estate and came back later to take them away
• Issue: although they were wild animals had they
came into possession of the owner of the land
because he abandoned them?
• Conclusion: no because his acCons were all part
of a single conCnuous transacCon, i.e. they hadn’t
been abandoned

Mens rea of The-

(i) Dishonestly appropriates → s.2(1) ‘without a claim of right made in good faith’.
(ii) With the intenCon of depriving
(iii) Knowledge
(iv) Dishonesty

People v Grey The test is subjec,ve. As the accused honestly

believed he was lawfully enCtled to the property as
a subsCtute for his contractual enCtlement to free
fuel, even though his belief was not grounded in
law or fact.
s.4(4) - Court may have regard to the presence or
absence of a reasonable honest belief.

In this case, the accused believed he had a lawful

right to take baceries and connectors as a
subsCtute for the free fuel he was contractually
enCtled to but couldn't receive due to warCme
raConing. Despite his belief not being based on
legal or factual grounds, the court considered it
honestly held. According to secCon 4(4), the court
can take into account the presence or absence of a
reasonable honest belief. The Court of Criminal
Appeal (CCA) ruled that the accused, in this
situaCon, was not dishonest because he genuinely
believed in his en,tlement, even if it wasn't legally
or factually supported.
DPP v Murphy The accused faced charges for withdrawing money
from a charity's account. His defense claimed he
had the owner's consent to do so, as he had
occasionally subsidized the charity from his
personal account. The key issue was whether the
trial judge properly instructed the jury on this
 defense. The Court of Appeal found that the
judge's direcCon was appropriate, although the
evidence supporCng an honest belief was weak.
The judge emphasized to the jury that it was their
role to assess the evidence and consider whether
the accused genuinely believed he had the right to
use the charity's funds. The law defines dishonesty,
and if there's evidence of an honest belief, the
jury must consider it in determining whether the
accused acted dishonestly, with the burden of
proving all elements on the prosecu,on.
Must be evidence of strong honest genuinely
belief.

Knowledge and dishonesty

s.4(2)(b) - Larceny by finding. The ques5on is whether the finder held an honest belief at the 5me
of finding that the owner could not be found by taking reasonable steps, and not whether the
owner could actually be found by taking reasonable steps.

This law (s.4(2)(b)) is about stealing something that you found. It asks whether the person who found it
honestly believed, at the Cme they found it, that the owner couldn't be found even if they tried their best
to find them. The important thing is what the finder believed at that ,me, not whether the owner could
actually be found if someone tried to look for them.

R v Deaves • the accused’s daughter found money and gave it

to the defendant
• she took her mother to the place where the
money was found and the mother found another
coin and a purse
• Deaves meet a friend later that day who told her
that she had met an old woman who had lost the
precise sum of money that was found
• the friend gave the accused the old woman’s
address but Deaves chose to do nothing with that
informaCon
• Issue: is she guilty of larceny by finding?
• Law: “at the ,me of finding”
• ApplicaCon of law: no, because when her
daughter handed her over the money she had no
way of knowing her chances of finding the true
owner
 if you find something and at the ,me of finding
you could not find the true owner by taking
reasonable steps, then that's not the2.

Robbery

- Prosecu(on must prove each element of the3 plus the addi(onal element of robbery.
- Use of force, puts or intends to put the person in fear of being subjected to force there and then.

The offence of robbery is regulated by sec(on 14 of the 2001 Act. It is iden(cal to the old offence of
robbery as it stood under the 1916 Act.

14(1) A person is guilty of robbery if he or she steals, and immediately before or at the (me of doing so,
and in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and
there subjected to force.
(2) A person guilty of robbery is liable on convic(on on indictment to imprisonment for life.

Robbery is an aggravated form of the3.

Force

R v Dawson & James • a sailor was made to lose his balance at which
point the man standing behind him reached into
his pocket and removed his wallet
• Issue: did the force used have to be “substan(al”
to transform a the3 into a robbery?
• Conclusion: not defini(ve answer, but seemed to
indicate not – it would be judged on a case by case
basis

- If force is proven you need not prove the vic,m feared the force.
- The force must be carried out with the inten,on to commit the2.

Fear

DPP v Mangan Man smashed window of car to steal purses while

nuns were in it. He used the force against the
window , not a person. Court → force has to be
directed at a person if robbery is to be made out
 on this basis; however raising fear in person is
alternate means of commiYng a robbery.
He was liable for the offence of robbery.
The court said that for it to be considered robbery,
the force should be used against a person, not just
a window. However, if the person feels scared, it
can s,ll be seen as robbery. So, in this case, the
man was responsible for the robbery offense.

- The use of force or raising the fear of it need not be directed at the vic,m – it can be applied to
“any person.”

Actus reus element of Immediately before or at the (me

- Robbery not commiZed if force is used or threatened a3er the threat.
- ‘Then and there’ suggest a strict immediacy requirement but England and Wales have introduced
the idea of con(nuous act.

R v Hale Two accused entered the vic(m’s house and they

(ed her up before they le3 to give them (me to
get away. They argued that she was (ed up ( force
was used) a2er the the3 was completed so they
could not be guilty.
CA ~ accepted that tying up the vic(m of a the3
could be robbery if done in the course of the
unlawful removal of the goods.

For a robbery to occur, the use or threat of force

must happen at the same (me as the the3.
However, in some cases, like the R. v. Hale example
from England, tying up a vic(m during the unlawful
removal of goods can turn a the3 into a robbery.
The court considered it a con,nuous act, leYng
the jury decide if the act of taking the items had
truly finished, even though the the3 offense used
the words "then and there."

Burglary

Actus reus: Entering a building or a part thereof as a trespasser

Governed by s.12 of the 2001 Act:

(a) enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit an arrest-
able offence, or

(b) having entered a building or a part of a building, commits or a2empts to commit any such
offence therein.

Entry (an actus reus element)

 Common law rules suggest even a finger is sufficient. It is not clear whether Ireland will follow this
approach as we have not had a decision on it yet, England have departed from the common law rules,
but have also seen a move away from the ‘effec(ve and substan(al’ test used instead of the common
law rules.
R v Collins Entry needed to be ‘substan,al and effec,ve’ prior
to the invita,on to be guilty of an offence.
(Invita(on given in this case as girl mistook D as her
boyfriend). Court → not guilty.

R v Brown D did not enter the building en(rely, merely broke

the window to take goods near it. D argued that as
at least half of his body was not in the building it
was not substan(al. Commentator on judgment of
the case suggests substan(al and effec(ve are
alterna(ves, and there was effec(ve entry here.

R v Ryan - neither effec(ve or substan(al as D got

caught in the window.
- Not guilty if entry is involuntary. e.g.
dragged in.

Trespass (an actus reus element)

- It is presumed from the 2001 Act that in order to be a criminal trespasser you need to enter with
knowledge or at least be subjec5vely reckless as to whether you are entering unlawfully.

- Permission to enter ≠ not trespasser. Permission may be limited to certain rooms or a par6cular
purpose.

Baker v R. Neighbour allowed to enter house while owner was

on holiday. Permission did not extend to selling
furniture. So, he entered as trespasser.

People (DPP) v McMahon Implied permission to public to enter a public house

to buy and consumer drink. Gardaí not permiZed to
carry out inves(ga(ons on this permission.

Under the old common law rule, if you as an adult child entered your parent's house with the inten(on of
stealing,you could not be a burglar because under the common law rule, your entry would never be unlawful,
as your parents have given you an unlimited right to be in the building. But this changed in England and Wales.

R v Jones, R v Smith Both D’s entered Smith’s Father’s house to burglar

TV’s. Father said son was given unreserved
permission to enter house, however, Court found
both guilty as Smith had exceeded the permission.
 Mens Rea

- (a) knowledge or recklessness as to whether you are a trespasser

- (b) inten(on to commit an arrestable offence when entering or developed a3er entry

S.12(4) - arrestable offence - 'offence for which a person of full age and not previously convicted may be

punished by imprisonment for a term of five years or by a more severe penalty’.

Lynch v Anderson & DPP the common sense meaning of burglary is different
to that in the legal sense. For a charge of the
offence to be valid the arrest able offence must be
specified and the common sense defini,on
cannot be used

Aggravated Burglary (s.13)

Possession – accused has them with themselves

R v Murphy Proximate possession of weapon is sufficient.

Firearm has to be with the offender.

People (DPP) v Ebbs ‘closer contact’ rather than mere possession must
be proven.

As with burglary, there are two types of aggravated burglary, the possession requirement varies
accordingly.

- (a) first type of offence → you must haven the weapon on you before you enter

- (b) second type → you must be armed when you commit or aZempt to commit the arrestable
offence.
R v Stones Condi5onal intent is sufficient. i.e. you need not
use the weapon

R v McCalla forgePng you had the weapon is not a defence.

R v Klass Prosecu5on must prove that all defendants had

knowledge of the weapon.