Property and Dishonesty Offences

LAWS2030/LAWS6130 CRIMINALLAWANDPROCEDURE AUGUST2021 WEEK6 PROPERTYAND DISHONESTYOFFENCES LARCENY ELEMENTS Larceny (Common Law) Tangible personal property Possession of another Asportation Without consent Intent to Permanently Deprive Dishonesty Claim of Right KEYAUTHORITY: ILICHVTHEQUEEN(1986) 162 CLR 110 LARCENY PROPERTYCAPABLEOFBEINGSTOLEN Property must be moveable: land; fixtures; R v Young (1947) 48 SR (NSW) 46. See CA 1900 (NSW) ss139-140, 154 re fixtures. See Case of Swans (1591) 7 Ci Rep 15b; CA 1900 (NSW) ss 126-133 re domestic animals. Property must have value (even slight): R v Perry (1845) 174 ER 1008. Property must be tangible: Croton(1967) 117 CLR 326, 329 (Barwick CJ) Information is not tangible: Lloyd[1985] 3 WLR 30. Data is not tangible: Oxford v Moss(1978) 68 Cr App R 183 Gas is tangible: R v White (1853) 169 ER 696. Statutory modifications: See CA 1900 (NSW) ss134-138 re valuable securities/ documents etc. See egElectricity Supply Act 1995(NSW) s 64(1). COREPRINCIPLE= LARCENYRESTRICTEDTOCHATTELS (TANGIBLEPERSONALPROPERTY). LARCENY PROPERTYINTHEPOSSESSIONOFANOTHERPERSON Larceny is an offence against possession(or ownership): Ilich(1986) 162 CLR 110, 123. The true legal owner can commit larceny: Rose v Matt [1951] 1 KB 810; R v Cameron (1924) 24 SR (NSW) 302. Stolen property: CA 1900 (NSW) s 94AA. Unlawful possession: Anic (1993) 61 SASR 223. Possession includes: Actual possession: Hibbertv McKiernan[1948] 2 KB 142. Constructive possession: Ellis v Lawson(1987) 33 A Crim R 69. Some statutory extensions of larceny designed to deal with challenges related to possession (larceny by bailee; embezzlement; larceny by servant). LARCENY ASPORTATION ORTAKINGANDCARRYINGAWAY Wallis v Lane [1964] VR 293, 295 (Herring CJ): [A]nymovement of goods is sufficient to constitute an asportation it is sufficient asportation if there is a removal of the property from the spot where it was originally placed A positive act is required: R v Thomas (1953) 37 Cr App R 169; Potisk(1973) 6 SASR 389, 398 (Bray CJ). COREPRINCIPLE= EVENTHESLIGHTESTMOVEMENT CONSTITUTESANASPORTATION Property must have been taken without the consent of the person in possession: Croton(1967) 117 CLR 326. Implied licence: Kolosquev Miyazaki (NSWSC, 1995) Facilitation is not consent: Kennisonv Daire (1986) 60 ALJR 249. Example: Martin v Puttick [1968] 2 QB 82. LARCENY TAKINGWITHOUTCONSENTOFTHEPOSSESSOR Threats consent: R v Lovell (1881) 8 QBD 185. Fundamental mistake consent: Potisk(1973) 6 SASR 389; Ilich(1986) 162 CLR 110. Identity of the recipient; Identity of the property; Quantity of property. Finding: MacDonald [1983] 1 NSWLR 729. Larceny by trick: Justelius[1973] 1 NSWLR 471. There is no larceny unless the person taking the property intends to PERMANENTLY deprive the possessor of that property. See CA 1900 (NSW) s 154A. Intention to return the property is no defence: CA 1900 (NSW) s 118 Narrow reading: Foster (1967) 118 CLR 117, 121 (Barwick CJ). Conditional intention to return = intention to deprive permanently: Lowe v Hooker [1987] TasR 153. Significance of limiteduse: Lloyd[1985] 1 QB 829. Changing the nature of property can = intention to deprive permanently: Smails (1957) WN (NSW) 150; Weatherstone(1987) 8 Petty SessRev 3729. LARCENY INTENTIONTOPERMANENTLYDEPRIVE LARCENY DISHONESTLY/FRAUDULENTLY Terms interchangeable: Glenister[1980] 2 NSWLR 597; Macleod(2003) 214 CLR 230. [Largely] objective test: Feely[1973] 1 QB 530 Two stage, objective/ subjective test: Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053. Feely-style approach preferred by High Court of Australia: Peters(1998) 192 CLR 493; Macleod (2003) 214 CLR 230. Ghoshtest subject to criticisms and approval over time; Ghosh criticized in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2018] AC 391. Current position = favour Feely approach; moral obloquy required in NSW: Weatherstone(NSWSC, 1987); Baartman[1998] NSWSC 653; Peters(1998) 192 CLR 493; Macleod(2003) 214 CLR 230. Note statutory definition in CA 1900(NSW) s 4B!! CLAIMOFRIGHT A DEFENCE TOLARCENY(ANDRELATED/COMPOUNDOFFENCES) Defence; related to dishonesty(?). Rationale: avoid unjust oppression (see Walden v Hensler(1987) 167 CLR 561, 570 (Brennan J)). Fuge(2001) 123 A CrimR 310, 314-315 (Wood CJ at CL): Belief as to right to property/money in hands of another Claim must be genuinely/honestly held Belief does not need to be reasonable; pretence insufficient Belief in legalentitlement (not mere moral entitlement) Defence can extend beyond larceny *** (Heydon JA) Not confined to specific property/money; can extend to equivalent in value Claim must extend to the entirety of the property taken Available to the principalin accessorial liability cases Burden on prosecution to negative defence where it is raised 1)PROPERTYwas STOLEN: Extended definition of stealing; see CA 1900 (NSW) s 187 Police = agents of victim: see Villensky[1892] 2 QB 597, Alexander and Keely [1981] VR 277 2)Accused RECEIVEDthe property: Accused must possess the property: Fien[1962] NSWR 134 Joint possession with thief: Gleed(1916) 12 Cr App R 32 Constructive possession: Miller and Connors (1854) 6 Cox CC 353 3)Accused KNEWthat property was stolen: Defendant subjectively believed that the property was stolen; more than mere suspicion see Raad[1983] 3 NSWLR 344; Schipanski(1989) 17 NSWLR 618; Dykyj(1993) 29 NSWLR 672; McConnell(1993) 69 A Crim R 39. 1)PROPERTYwas STOLEN: Extended definition of stealing; see CA 1900 (NSW) s 187 Police = agents of victim: see Villensky[1892] 2 QB 597, Alexander and Keely [1981] VR 277 2)Accused RECEIVEDthe property: Accused must possess the property: Fien[1962] NSWR 134 Joint possession with thief: Gleed(1916) 12 Cr App R 32 Constructive possession: Miller and Connors (1854) 6 Cox CC 353 3)Accused KNEWthat property was stolen: Defendant subjectively believed that the property was stolen; more than mere suspicion see Raad[1983] 3 NSWLR 344; Schipanski(1989) 17 NSWLR 618; Dykyj(1993) 29 NSWLR 672; McConnell(1993) 69 A Crim R 39. RELATEDDOCTRINES: RECENTPOSSESSION: BELLAMY[1981] 2 NSWLR 727 PERSONSUNKNOWN: TRAINER(1906) 4 CLR 126. SPECIALVERDICT: CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) S121: PROPERAPPROACH: SALEAM(1989) 41 A CRIMR 108; CLARKE (1995) 78 A CRIMR 226; NGUYEN(NSWCCA, 1997). RECENTAUTHORITIES: MORGAN(2011) 215 A CRIMR 33; GEITZ (2013) 238 A CRIMR 156. GOODSINCUSTODY CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) S527C Strict approach: Grant (1981) 147 CLR 503. Custody = immediate control/charge of item: Ex parte McPherson(1933) 50 WN (NSW) 25. Custody at time of apprehension required: English(1989) 17 NSWLR 149; cfs 527(1)(d). Broad approach to giving custody: Gilroy v Jebara(1992) 29 NSWLR 20. Reasonably suspected of being stolen = objective: Haken v Johnson(NSWSC, 1993); Anderson v Judges of the District Court (NSW) (1992) 27 NSWLR 701. Need only be onereasonable suspicion: Chan(1992) 28 NSWLR 421; Madden(1995) 85 A Crim R 367. Suspicion = minimum requirement: Grace(1930) 30 SR (NSW) 158. DEFENCE= ABSENCEOFREASONABLEGROUNDS: SEECA S 527C(2); TEGGEVCALDWELL(1988) 15 NSWLR 226. Elements found at common law: see Smith v Desmond[1965] AC 960 Elements of robbery: Actusreus= physical elements of larceny PLUS threat/use of violence during the takingof property (see Hamze[2006] NSWCCA 36). Mensrea = mental elements of larceny PLUS threat/violence intended to overcome resistance (see Gnosil(1824) 171 ER 1206). Physical, actual and constructive possession sufficient: Smith v Desmond[1965] AC 960 All elements of larceny must be proven: Salameh (1986) 26 A CrimR 353. Threat/violence must be before/duringthe taking of property: Foster(1995) 78 A Crim R 517. BASICPREMISE: ROBBERY= LARCENY+ ASSAULT ROBBERY (CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) SS94-98) Elements found at common law: see Smith v Desmond[1965] AC 960 Elements of robbery: Actusreus= physical elements of larceny PLUS threat/use of violence during the takingof property (see Hamze[2006] NSWCCA 36). Mensrea = mental elements of larceny PLUS threat/violence intended to overcome resistance (see Gnosil(1824) 171 ER 1206). Physical, actual and constructive possession sufficient: Smith v Desmond[1965] AC 960 All elements of larceny must be proven: Salameh (1986) 26 A CrimR 353. Threat/violence must be before/duringthe taking of property: Foster(1995) 78 A Crim R 517. BASICPREMISE: ROBBERY= LARCENY+ ASSAULT ROBBERY (CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) SS94-98) ROBBERY (CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) SS94-98) Stealing from the person and robbery are distinct offences. Key distinction: taking is not by threat/ violence. Young[2003] NSWCCA 276. Broad approach to possessionalso applies to the offence of stealing from the person: Delk(1999) 46 NSWLR 340. Defence of claim of right relevant where mens rea of larceny is an element: Langham(1984) 36 SASR 48; Fuge(2001) 123 A Crim R 310. Network of aggravated offences: CA 1900 (NSW) ss95-96. CA 1900(NSW) ss97-98. Guideline Judgment re Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 97 Armed Robbery: R v Henry(1999) 46 NSWLR 346 BREAKANDENTER (CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) SS105A-115A) Breaks: some interference with the physical security of a building: oActual breaking: Stanford(2007) 70 NSWLR 474. oConstructive breaking: R v Chandler[1913] 1 KB 125; R v Boyle [1954] 2 QB 292; Ghamrawi(2017) 95 NSWLR 405; Singh [2019] NSWCCA 110. Enters: R v Welker [1962] VR 244; R v Collins [1973] QB 100. Dwelling house/building: s 105A(1); CA s 4. Serious indictable offence: CA s 4. Circumstances of aggravation: s 105A(1);(2)(a),(2A). Circumstances of special aggravation: s 105A(1); (2)(b);ODonoghue (2005) 151 A Crim R 597. Alternative verdicts: s 115A(1)-(3). EXAMPLE: CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) S112 BREAKANDENTER (CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) SS105A-115A) Breaks: some interference with the physical security of a building: oActual breaking: Stanford(2007) 70 NSWLR 474. oConstructive breaking: R v Chandler[1913] 1 KB 125; R v Boyle [1954] 2 QB 292; Ghamrawi(2017) 95 NSWLR 405; Singh [2019] NSWCCA 110. Enters: R v Welker [1962] VR 244; R v Collins [1973] QB 100. Dwelling house/building: s 105A(1); CA s 4. Serious indictable offence: CA s 4. Circumstances of aggravation: s 105A(1);(2)(a),(2A). Circumstances of special aggravation: s 105A(1); (2)(b);ODonoghue (2005) 151 A Crim R 597. Alternative verdicts: s 115A(1)-(3). EXAMPLE: CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) S112 FRAUD OVERVIEW 192EFraud (1)A person who, by any deception, dishonestly: (a)obtains property belonging to another, or (b)obtains any financial advantageor causes any financial disadvantage, is guilty of the offence of fraud. s 192Bs 4B s 192Cs 192D 18 FRAUD DECEPTION CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) S192B Actus Reus: False statements: M [1980] 2 NSWLR 195. Conduct without words: Barnard(1837) 7 C&P 784. Continuing representations: Nelson(1986) 19 A CrimR 200; DPP v Ray [1974] AC 370 Company/employees: Police v Carradine (1996) 66 SASR 584; Electronic devices: CA s 192B(1); Moore(2016) 262 A Crim R 590. Mensrea: Intention orrecklessness: s192B(2). Extension of the common law position (intention only): Greene(1949) 79 CLR 353. Uncertainty re recklessness; Smith(1982) 7 A Crim R 437; see now Blackwell(2011) 81 NSWLR 119 possibility. Note that the person deceived need not be the person from whom property etcis obtained: Kovacs[1974] 1 All ER 1236; Charles[1977] AC 370; Clarkson [1987] VR 962.19 FRAUD OBTAININGPROPERTY CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) S192C Actus reus: See Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 4 statutory definition of property; tangible and intangible property included. See also possession; CA 1900 (NSW) s 7. s 192C(1) contemplates ownership/possession/ control of property. Obtaining; see Preddy [1996] AC 815. Mensrea: Permanent deprivation: s 192C(2) BUT Extended definition: s 192C(4),(5). 20 Incorporates (1) directly, (2) indirectly obtaining & (3) retaining advantage. Financial advantage words of plain meaning(see Murphy [1987] TasR 178; Walsh (1990) 52 A CrimR 80; Elias v DPP [2012] NSWCA 302). See Coelho v Durbin (NSWSC, 1993): financial benefit. 21 Covers situation where a person is deliberately caused a financial loss. Incorporates direct and indirect effects. Avoids difficulty of debt evasion cases (eg Matthews v Fountain [1982] VR 1045; Vasic (2005) 11 VR 380). FRAUD CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) S192D NOSTATUTORYDIRECTIONREMENS REAFORADVANTAGE/DISADVANTAGE; HEKAWTEHPRINCIPLESAPPLY. OBTAININGFINANCIALADVANTAGECAUSINGFINANCIALDISADVANTAGE FRAUD CAUSATION Essentialcomponent of s 192E offence. Causal connection between deception and object of fraud essential: Hoand Szeto(1989) 39 A CrimR 145. Deception must have been operative cause of the object of fraud: R v King [1987] 1 QB 547; Royle(1971) 56 Cr App R 131. Question of factfor the jury to resolve (common sense): R v King [1987] 1 QB 547; can be proven by direct evidence and/or inferences: Flack v R [2011] NSWCCA 167. 22 FRAUD DISHONESTY CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) S4B Pre-2009 authorities: Salvo[1980] VR 401; Love(1989) 17 NSWLR 608; Peters(1998) 192 CLR 493. See also other statutory schemes (eg Criminal Code (Cth) s 130.3) Common law may still apply to any fraud offences that exist at common law (egconspiracy to defraud; Elias v DPP (NSW) [2012] NSWCA 302). 23 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 4B is thekey provision for statutory dishonesty offences. OTHERPROPERTY/DISHONESTYOFFENCES CRIMESACT1900 (NSW) ANDCRIMINALCODE1995 (CTH) Identity Theft Offences: Dealing with ID information: CA 1900 (NSW) s 192J Possession ID information: CA 1900 (NSW) s 192K Possession equipment to make ID docs: CA 1900 (NSW) s 192L See also Criminal Code (Cth) ss480.4-480.6 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) Chapter 7 Social Security fraud: Obtaining property/financial advantage by deception: Cth Code ss134.1(1), 134.2(1). General dishonesty causing a loss: CthCode s 135.1(5) Obtaining a financial advantage: CthCode s 135.2(1)24 Computer-based Offences: Indictable offences: CA 1900 (NSW) ss308C-308E Preparatory offences: CA 1900 (NSW) ss308F-308G Summary offences: CA 1900 (NSW) ss308H-308I