Smith & Ors, R v

Smith & Ors, R v

Unlawfully possessed drugs constitute 'property' for purposes of the Theft Act 1968; robbery conviction is valid even where the property stolen is illegal to possess.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Andrew Smith; Applicant: Andrew William Plummer; Appellant: James John Haines; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Theft, Sentencing, Proprietary Rights in Unlawful Property
Criminal Law Robbery Theft Sentencing Proprietary Rights in Unlawful Property

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Andrew Smith

Appellant

Andrew William Plummer

Applicant

James John Haines

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether drugs unlawfully possessed constitute 'property' for purposes of the Theft Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether conviction for robbery of unlawfully possessed drugs is valid
  3. 3 Appropriateness of sentence imposed

Ratio Decidendi

Unlawfully possessed drugs constitute 'property' for purposes of the Theft Act 1968; robbery conviction is valid even where the property stolen is illegal to possess.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.

Orders

  • Applications for leave to appeal against conviction out of time refused.
  • Conviction upheld for all appellants.