Class Notes (836,580)
Australia (1,845)
Law (441)
JSB171 (400)
All (349)

LWB238 - Wk3 - Stealing

5 Pages
Unlock Document

All Professors

Stealing (ADD DISCUSSION OF ILLICH) Definition/Punishment: WRITE: Stealing defined in s391 CC as when a a person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to the person’s own use or to the use of any other person anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing. The offence is created and punished in s398(1) CC. Prosecution must prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt and the punishment is 5 years imprisonment but can be increased if aggravated. Include aggravation if applicable. Aggravated Stealing: • Life imprisonment if the thing stolen is a testamentary instrument (s 398[1]) • 14 years’ imprisonment if the thing stolen is a firearm (intended for use in the commission of an indictable offence) or a vehicle (s 398[12], [14]) By 10 years’ imprisonment in a range of circumstances such as – • where the thing is stolen from the person of another (s 398[4](a)) • where it is stolen in a dwelling house and exceeds $1000 in value or was taken with a threat of violence (s 398[4](b)) • where it is stolen from a vehicle (s 398[4](c)) • where there is a relationship between the stealing and the accused’s position (such as public servant, clerk, servant, company director, agent or tenant) (ss 398[5]-[8], [10]) • where the value of the thing exceeds $5000 or after previous conviction (s 398[9], [11]) • where the thing stolen is firearm (s 398[15]) Has [accused] committed stealing? 1. Is [item stolen] capable of being stolen? WRITE: [Item stolen] is property as it is [below subsection] and falls under s1 [below subsection] CC. (a) Every thing animate or inanimate that is capable of being the subject of ownership; (b) Money; (c) Electrical or other energy, gas and water; (d) A plant; (e) An animal that is – (i) A tame animal, whether or not naturally tame; (ii) An untamed animal of a type that, if kept is usually kept confined; or (iii)An untamed animal in a person’s possession or being pursued for return to possession after escape; (f) A thing produced by an animal mentioned in paragraph (e); and (g) Any other property real or personal, legal or equitable, including things in action (i.e. money in bank) and other intangible property. WRITE: [Item stolen] is property capable of being stolen as it is [moveable/capable of being made moveable]: s390 CC. CASE: Capable of being made moveable: Billing v Pill [UK] (Dismantled army hut that was bolted to concrete thus attached to realty = made moveable). Money in Bank (Previously unable to steal as money was a chose in action: Croton) however now under new s1 definition of property, can be stolen. Identity of actual owner need not be known: R v McKiernan (original owner unknown); R v Flood (dead owner) ADDITIONAL: • Property can be stolen when does not make reasonable efforts to discover owner: s391(5). • Can steal from person whose possession is unlawful: s391(7). WRITE: Therefore [item stolen] is/isn’t capable of being stolen. 2. Has [accused] asportated the [item stolen]? WRITE: Here, [accused] has/hasn’t actually moved or dealt with the property by some physical act. CASES: • Enough to have movement and intent to steal: Wallis v Lane (Theft of bicycle accessories by truck driver by moving to different spot within delivery truck). • Offence not complete just because goods have been moved: Johnson + s396(6). (Lookout during robbery warned after goods moved from store). • Need some movement: Bogacki (Tried to start car, not stealing). • Movement need only be minimal: Lapier 3. Has [accused] fraudulently taken or converted the [item stolen]? A) Taking: WRITE: Despite CL requiring taking to be non-consensual CC doesn’t: Illich. Taking bears it’s ordinary meaning and here, [Accused] has/hasn’t taken the [item stolen]. B) Converting: • Immaterial whether the thing converted is taken for purposes of conversion, or at the time of conversion in the possession of the person who converts it: s391(4) • Immaterial that the person who converts is the holder of the power of attorney for the disposition of it, or otherwise authorised to dispose of the property: s391(4A) CASES: Non-return of video game after long time (Not amount to conversion - must be more than passive possession): R v Angus. Selling property: Powell (Particularly if under value: Gunderson v Miller) Changing it’s appearance: Russell WRITE: Conversion is not defined in the CC but has been defined by CL: CJ Gibbs in Illich. Here, [accused] has/hasn’t dealt with the goods in a manner inconsistent with the true owner’s rights by [accused’s actions]. In doing this [accused] showed an intent to [denied the owner’s rights AND/OR asserted a right inconsistent with the owner’s rights]:. Therefore [Accused] has/hasn’t converted the [item stolen]. WRITE: Therefore [Accused] has/hasn’t [taken AND/OR converted] the [item], however this must have been done fraudulently: R v Angus; s391(1) and (2). Special Category:
More Less

Related notes for JSB171

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.