Problem Question: Criminal Law, No.12

Problem Question

Bill finds an expensive flower pot left on his drive by a delivery van driver who made a mistake. Bill realises the pot does not belong to him but offers it to his neighbour Ben for £100, which Ben declines. Bill then uses the pot to grow flowers. Later, Littleweed, the original purchaser, sees the pot at Bill’s house, retrieves it, and reports Bill to the police. Meanwhile, Rickety, a builder, renovates Marple’s house and charges her £10,000. Marple’s son, Sharper, persuades Rickety to bet the £10,000 on a card game, which Sharper wins using a rigged deck of cards. Discuss the liability, if any, of Bill, Littleweed, Rickety, and Sharper for theft.

Analysis

Bill’s Criminal Liability

1. Attempted Theft

• Dishonesty: Bill recognised that the flower pot was not intended for him. Under R v Ghosh [1982] and the Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] case, dishonesty is judged by the standards of ordinary people and whether the defendant knew or should have known that their actions were dishonest.

• Appropriation: Bill’s act of offering the pot to Ben for £100, although not accepted, shows intent to treat the pot as his own. According to R v Pitham and Hehl [1977], an offer to sell property that does not belong to the defendant constitutes appropriation.

• Property Belonging to Another: The pot belongs to Littleweed, so Bill’s act of taking it without permission constitutes an appropriation of someone else’s property.

• Intention to Permanently Deprive: By initially attempting to sell the pot and later using it for growing flowers, Bill's actions suggest an intention to dispose of the property as his own. This satisfies the intention to permanently deprive.

Conclusion: Bill could be liable for attempted theft due to his initial intention to sell the pot. However, since he did not complete the theft (i.e., he did not take the pot with the intent to permanently deprive Littleweed of it), the charge of theft is less clear. His actions could be seen as more consistent with theft once he used the pot for personal use.

2. Theft

• Dishonesty and Appropriation: Filling the pot with earth and growing flowers in it does not necessarily constitute dishonesty if Bill genuinely believed he had a right to use it. However, he initially considered it as potentially his by offering it for sale, which indicates a dishonest appropriation.

• Intention of Permanent Deprivation: By using the pot as his own, Bill showed an intention to permanently deprive Littleweed of it, fulfilling the criteria for theft.

Conclusion: Bill’s initial act could be considered an attempt at theft, and his later use of the pot might also be considered theft, given the intention to permanently deprive the owner.

Littleweed’s Criminal Liability

1. Burglary

• Dishonesty and Appropriation: Littleweed taking the pot back does not constitute burglary as she did not enter any building unlawfully or commit theft in the sense of entering a property.

• Property Belonging to Another: Littleweed's act of retrieving her own property, even if done without informing Bill, is not theft or burglary as it involves reclaiming her rightful property.

Conclusion: Littleweed does not have criminal liability for burglary as she was simply reclaiming her own property. There is no theft or unlawful entry involved.

Rickety’s Criminal Liability

1. Theft

• Dishonesty: Rickety’s charging of £10,000 for the renovation work could be deemed dishonest if it is considered to be grossly inflated compared to the value of the work done.

• Appropriation: Rickety did not appropriate Marple’s property unlawfully. The money was given in exchange for services, and there was no deceitful taking of money.

• Property Belonging to Another: The £10,000 was transferred as payment for the work done, and Marple’s payment was a valid transaction.

Conclusion: Rickety is not liable for theft as the money was lawfully transferred in exchange for services, despite any possible overcharging.

Sharper’s Criminal Liability

1. Theft

• Dishonesty: Sharper used a rigged deck of cards to deceive Rickety into betting and losing £10,000. Under Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017], the test of dishonesty is whether the actions are judged to be dishonest by the standards of reasonable people.

• Appropriation: Sharper’s actions constitute appropriation of Rickety’s money through deception. Using rigged cards for betting is fraudulent and involves taking money under false pretences.

• Intention of Permanent Deprivation: Sharper’s intention was to permanently deprive Rickety of the £10,000 by using deceitful means to win the money.

Conclusion: Sharper’s use of a rigged deck to deceive Rickety into betting constitutes theft. His actions involved dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive Rickety of the money.