R v Smith, Plummer and Haines [2011] EWCA Crim 66; [2011] Crim LR 719

Under the Theft Act 1968, property includes money, real property, personal items, and intangible rights.

• This broad definition ensures a wide range of valuable items is protected against theft.

• Theft involves dishonestly taking someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it.

• Robbery, a more severe crime, combines theft with the use or threat of force to ensure the theft occurs.

The credibility of witnesses is crucial in legal proceedings, determined by their reliability, honesty, and consistency. Evaluating these factors ensures accurate and trustworthy testimony.

Sentencing guidelines help judges impose fair and consistent penalties based on the offense's severity, the offender's responsibility, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

On 7 March 2009, Michael Andrew Smith, Andrew William Plummer, and James John Haines (the "Defendants") violently robbed Chesterfield Jordan, who was involved in the illicit drug trade.

• Earlier, Jordan had exchanged heroin with Smith for a camera, setting up the robbery.

• Later, Smith contacted Jordan for more heroin, leading Jordan to meet the Defendants at a prearranged location.

• The Defendants, who had been hiding nearby, attacked Jordan when he arrived.

• Plummer restrained Jordan with a knife, while Haines punched him and demanded the drugs.

• Jordan complied under duress but was brutally beaten by all three Defendants, resulting in severe injuries.

During their trial at Reading Crown Court, the Defendants provided conflicting accounts of their involvement.

• Smith denied being present, Haines admitted to being there but denied violence, and Plummer acknowledged being present but claimed others were responsible for the attack.

• The jury convicted all three of robbery, sentencing them to eight years in prison.

The Defendants appealed, questioning whether the stolen illegal drugs could be considered "property" under the Theft Act 1968.

• They argued that since Jordan’s drug possession was unlawful, their appropriation of the drugs shouldn’t constitute theft.

In the Court of Appeal, the appeal on the grounds of the legality of the theft was rejected.

The Court upheld the conviction, affirming that stolen drugs, despite being illegal to possess, could still be considered "property" under the Theft Act 1968.

• The Act’s definition of property included all items unless explicitly excluded, and the court found no justification to exclude illegal drugs from this definition.

The Defendants’ appeals against their sentences were also dismissed.

• The Court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the sentencing guidelines and had not imposed an excessive starting point.

• Each Defendant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, which the Court deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the robbery.

Smith’s other arguments, including the challenge to the credibility of the complainant and the claim of a "lurking doubt," were also rejected.

• The Court concluded that the trial judge had properly managed the trial, and that the jury’s decision was well-supported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no grounds to overturn the convictions or sentences and dismissed all appeals.

This case provides significant insights into the application of property law within criminal justice, particularly in relation to the Theft Act 1968.

A key aspect of this case was the legal interpretation of "property" under the Theft Act 1968.

• The Court of Appeal's ruling reaffirmed that illegal drugs can indeed be classified as property, despite their unlawful status.

• This decision is important because it shows the principle that the Theft Act’s definition of property is broad and inclusive.

• The judgment clarified that unless expressly excluded, all property, including items that are illegal to possess, falls under the scope of the Act.

• This approach maintains consistency in the application of the law, ensuring that the legal definition of property remains comprehensive and applicable to a wide range of scenarios.

In terms of sentencing, the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appeals highlights the importance of adhering to established guidelines.

• The court’s approval of the eight-year sentences reflects an understanding of the gravity of the offense.

• The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding sentencing guidelines while also considering the severity of the crime.

• By maintaining the sentences, the Court reinforced the notion that serious crimes, particularly those involving violence and substantial harm, warrant significant penalties.

The rejection of the appeal challenging the complainant’s credibility and the concept of "lurking doubt" demonstrates the court's reliance on the jury’s role in evaluating evidence.

• The judgment affirmed the trial judge’s management of the case and supported the jury’s verdict.

• This aspect of the ruling reinforces the principle that factual determinations and credibility assessments are primarily within the jury’s domain.

• The Court of Appeal’s stance highlights the limited grounds on which appellate courts can overturn convictions based on jury decisions.

The judgment stands as a significant reaffirmation of the principles governing theft and property under criminal law. It highlights the comprehensive scope of the Theft Act 1968, reinforces the importance of following sentencing guidelines, and upholds the jury’s role in assessing evidence.