Larceny/Theft (Offences Against Property) Notes Dajanae Dawkins All rights reserved

N/B: THEFT AND LARCENY ARE THE SAME, DIFFERENT COUNTRIES REFER TO IT DIFFERENTLY. IT DEPENDS ON YOUR ANSWER WHETHER YOU USE THEFT ACT OR LARCENY ACT, IF YOU USE THEFT ACT OF BARBADOS IT HAS SPECIFIC MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS VERSUS IF YOU USE JAMAICA’S LARCENY ACT

🥷🏾LARCENY (JAMAICA) Larceny Act (Section 3) (Jamaica) defines larceny as ‘a person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away any- thing capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof’

*A person steals an item without consent of the owner, without a rightful claim/fraudulently and takes it away intentionally and permanently. The item must be capable of being stolen (don’t really use this as it is just to get the jist of the offence)

Elements 1.the defendant must have stolen the item without consent of the owner/part owner (full item, not part of item) 2.the defendant does so fraudulently and without a rightful claim 3.the defendant takes and carries away the item 4.the item must be anything capable of being stolen (doesn’t have to be tangible) 5.the defendant possessed the specific mens rea 6.the defendant permanently deprives the victim of the item

🥷🏾Actus Reus to Larceny Elements: actual, physical, trespassory taking (eg: you took up the item with the intention of stealing but put it back in its original position or didn’t put it back) carrying away/asportation of item (took up the item and moved it from its original position, no matter how slight) (asportation is not in Jamaica’s Act, but Barbados Theft Act, you can mention that) *from the owner (you must take away the item from its rightful owner, can’t steal from yourself)

It essentially involves the actual taking of physical possession and control of the item even for a short time and such control must be complete. Another aspect is asportation which requires the ‘carrying away’. It means that the thief must not have only gained possession of the good, but taken it away from its original position.

The slightest/SHORTEST movement of the good is sufficient (Essentially you took the good knowing it isn’t yours on purpose no matter if you fully possess it or partially, as long as asportation is sufficient you are guilty.)

Eg: If a thief removes items from a safe and places them on the floor but is caught before he takes them to a waiting vehicle, there is an asportation. take it away permanently move it slightly in an attempt to take away *take it away with intention then put it back

Case: R v. Taylor The accused put his hand into T's pocket, seized T's purse and drew it to the edge of T's pocket. The purse lodged in T's belt enabling T to secure it. It was held that there was sufficient asportation amounting to larceny. The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was correctly convicted of simple larceny and dismissed his appeal.

Case: R v. Lapier The accused took hold of the prosecutrix's ear and pulled her diamond earring, causing her ear to tear. The earring was dislodged but upon arrival home, the prosecutrix found it lodged in her ear. There was held to be sufficient asportation.

🥷🏾TYPES OF TAKING (LARCENY ACT SECTION 3 (2)

1.Larceny by trick Case: R v Bramley X owned a colliery, which sold both coal and slack. Slack was cheaper than coal. The practice was to weigh the item and then make payment. A took a weight of coal, but on the way to the scales he put slack over the coal and indicated that what he had was a weight of slack. He paid for slack and left. He was convicted of larceny.

2.Larceny by intimidation Any action done by the accused which would have driven the owner to dispose of his property through force, threat, etc, would be considered intimidation

Case: R v Lovell The accused was given a job of grinding knives and agreed with the prosecutrix to pay a certain sum. When he completed the job he demanded, with threats, an amount four times the agreed sum.

The prosecutrix, for fear of her life, paid the amount demanded. The jury found that the accused had obtained the money by menaces and he was convicted of larceny. His appeal against conviction was dismissed.

3.Mistake On the part of the owner with knowledge on the part of the taker that possession was so obtained. In other words the victim realises its a mistake, and the defendant knows its a mistake yet uses or takes the item regardless

Eg: If A expects a fake jewel, and receives a real one and keeps it (knowing he shouldn’t have gotten a real one). Though he is mistaken, it is larceny.

Case: R v Middleton A's savings balance was confirmed to him and he sought to withdraw some of it. The clerk made an error by referring to another balance and overpaid him. A took the excess and left. He was convicted of larceny, being found to have the animus furandi. (intent to steal) As long as the defendant is aware of the mistake and proceeds rather than correcting it, it is larceny

a.Anything capable of being stolen One can now commit larceny through stealing trade secrets, copyrights or intellectual property (before under common law only tangible) One cannot commit larceny against himself but against part owners of property

b.Who is an owner? S3 (2iii) “owner” includes any part owner, or person having possession or control of, or a special property in, anything capable of being stolen; *if you steal from A, but A isn’t the owner, it isn’t larceny as A isn’t the owner

c.Permanently depriving the owner For it to be larceny he must indicate that he had no intention of passing the property back to its rightful owner.

If he can show that he was borrowing the item, to return it, there is no larceny.

Case: R v. Wynn W, a postman, destroyed a letter after he found that he had made a mistake in sorting. This was held to be larceny.

Case: R v. Hall A, B's servant, took certain items belonging to B and brought them to B for sale, claiming that he had obtained them from C. A was found guilty of larceny. By his actions, A intended to permanently deprive B of the property, which B would only get back if he purchased what, indeed, was already

🥷🏾Mens Rea to Larceny Elements: Animus furandi- intention to steal -This must be present at the time the taking and carrying away (actus reus) occurs For example: A took up B’s phone but didn’t intend to steal it only to show C, but B didn’t know that. A is not guilty as the mens rea is missing + no dishonesty

OR

1.the intention permanently to deprive the owner of the thing capable of being stolen 2.the accused must also be shown to have acted dishonestly

Case: R v. Ensom E took a handbag, searched it and, finding nothing to interest him, left it with its contents intact. The owner reclaimed it. E was convicted of theft and appealed successfully. The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence that the accused was animated by an intention to deprive the owner of the contents of the bag.

Three situations must exist in order for the accused to be deemed not to have acted dishonestly. These are: where he believes that he has a legal right to deprive another permanently of the property where he believes he would have received the consent of the owner had the owner been aware of the relevant circumstances *where, after taking reasonable steps to find out, he concludes that the owner cannot be found.

If none of these situations exist, A will be found guilty of larceny.

Case: R v. Thurborn T found a banknote in the street. There was no form of identification on it. T had immediately resolved to keep the money as soon as he found it. Before he disposed of it, T became aware of who the owner was. Despite this, he disposed of the money. It was held that T was not guilty of larceny as at the time of finding the banknote he did not know who the owner was.

Case: R v. White A was convicted of feloniously receiving stolen property. The person from who he received it had been convicted of larceny. He appealed on the ground that the property had in fact been abandoned. The Court of Appeal so found and his conviction was quashed.

Case: Tyndale v R T went into a store, placed items in her basket and took up cheese. T placed the cheese on a different shelf, came back for it and placed it in her bag. The store manager was suspicious and sent an employee to watch her in which he witnessed the act. T went to the cashier and paid for the items in the cart but not the cheese, and the manager stopped her accusing her of stealing. T said it was a mistake and offered to pay, but he refused. She was charged with larceny which held up in court.

🥷🏾 Defences There are none specifically but if the situation lacks an element you can use it as a defense

Eg: if A stole B’s phone and B she’s for larceny but it wasn’t B’s phone (not the owner). Ownership can be the defense!