Smith & Ors, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 66 (18 January 2011)

Smith & Ors, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 66 (18 January 2011)

Unlawful possession of property (here, illegal drugs) does not prevent that property from being 'property' for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968; therefore, the appropriation of such property can constitute theft or robbery. The trial judge's directions and refusal to discharge the jury were proper. The sentence was reduced to align with the appropriate guideline range.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 66
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Michael Andrew Smith; Applicant: Andrew William Plummer; Appellant: James John Haines
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; applications for leave to appeal out of time refused; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Theft, Possession of Illegal Drugs, Sentencing, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Robbery Theft Possession of Illegal Drugs Sentencing Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Michael Andrew Smith

Appellant

Andrew William Plummer

Applicant

James John Haines

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether property unlawfully possessed (illegal drugs) can be the subject of theft or robbery under the Theft Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for robbery was lawful where the property stolen was heroin unlawfully possessed by the complainant
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury after inadmissible material was heard

Ratio Decidendi

Unlawful possession of property (here, illegal drugs) does not prevent that property from being 'property' for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968; therefore, the appropriation of such property can constitute theft or robbery. The trial judge's directions and refusal to discharge the jury were proper. The sentence was reduced to align with the appropriate guideline range.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; applications for leave to appeal out of time refused; appeal against sentence allowed in part.

Orders

  • Convictions upheld for all appellants.
  • Sentences reduced from eight years to seven years' imprisonment for each appellant.