NIE Part 3:
Property Offences
Part 3 of the police NIE syllabus is the Theft Act, the Fraud Act, money laundering and criminal damage. It is smaller than Parts 1 and 2, but the offences are precise and the questions turn on single words: when the intent existed, whether force was then and there, whether goods were still stolen, whether a belief only had to be honest. This page sets out every chapter in the 2026 syllabus list with the statutory elements and maximum penalties, then the traps and five original worked questions.
Independent information, not advice · Sources checked 11 October 2026 · England and Wales unless stated
Know the five elements of theft and the Ivey and Barton dishonesty test, robbery (force then and there, in order to steal), blackmail (both beliefs), the two forms of burglary and when intent must exist, aggravated burglary timing, handling and when goods stop being stolen, the three ways of committing fraud plus the articles and services offences, the three POCA money laundering offences and 'knows or suspects', and the Criminal Damage Act offences with lawful excuse. In September 2026 Part 3 supplied 11 of the 70 scored questions. Statute wording and penalties were checked on legislation.gov.uk on 11 October 2026.
Part 3 at a glance
Part 3 of Blackstone's Police Investigators' Manual is titled "Property offences". The College of Policing's 2026 NIE candidate handbook lists nine chapters for it in Appendix A. The table below gives one line per chapter with the chapter number from that appendix. The NIE is 80 questions in two hours, scored on 70, and the exam tests the law as it appears in the 2026 edition of the Manual, not the law as it stands today. That matters in Part 3 because some property law has changed since the Manual was written (see law changes).
| Offence | What must be proved and the maximum | Chapter |
|---|---|---|
| Theft (s.1 Theft Act 1968) | Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Seven years (s.7) | 3.1 |
| Robbery (s.8) | Steals and, immediately before or at the time and in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. Life | 3.2 |
| Blackmail (s.21) | With a view to gain or intent to cause loss, makes an unwarranted demand with menaces. Fourteen years | 3.3 |
| Burglary (s.9) | Enters a building or part as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH or do unlawful damage; or, having entered as a trespasser, steals or inflicts GBH (or attempts either). Fourteen years dwelling, ten otherwise | 3.4 |
| Aggravated burglary (s.10) | Any burglary while having with him a firearm or imitation firearm, weapon of offence or explosive. Life | 3.5 |
| Handling (s.22) | Otherwise than in the course of stealing, knowing or believing goods to be stolen, dishonestly receives them or undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for another, or arranges to do so. Fourteen years | 3.6 |
| Fraud (Fraud Act 2006 s.1) | False representation (s.2), failing to disclose (s.3) or abuse of position (s.4), intending gain or loss. Ten years. Plus articles (ss.6 and 7), obtaining services (s.11) and false accounting (Theft Act s.17) | 3.7 |
| Money laundering (POCA ss.327 to 329) | Concealing, converting, transferring etc; arrangements; acquisition, use and possession of criminal property. Fourteen years | 3.8 |
| Criminal damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971) | Simple damage (s.1(1)), damage endangering life (s.1(2)), arson (s.1(3)), threats (s.2), articles with intent (s.3), contamination of goods (Public Order Act 1986 s.38) | 3.9 |
The College publishes a subject area breakdown after each sitting. For September 2026 it shows 11 scored questions from property offences out of 70, and 1 more removed at marking. That is roughly one question in six or seven. The College says the breakdown applies to that sitting only and should not be used to work out what will be tested next time. For how the four parts compare, see the NIE syllabus 2026 guide.
The handbook also says the exam is not a test of pure recall and does not examine information held only in the Manual's tables. Expect scenarios: a short set of facts and four options, where the right answer depends on applying an element correctly. Every worked question on this page is written that way.
Theft: section 1 and the five elements
Section 1(1) Theft Act 1968: a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. It does not matter whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or for the thief's own benefit (s.1(2)). Sections 2 to 6 interpret the elements. The maximum is seven years on indictment (s.7). Chapter 3.1 of the syllabus runs through each element in turn, from dishonesty (3.1.3 and 3.1.4) to the intention of permanently depriving (3.1.11).
| Element | Section | What the Act says, and the case law to know |
|---|---|---|
| Dishonestly | s.2 | Not dishonest if he believes he has a legal right to deprive, believes the owner would consent if he knew the circumstances, or (unless trustee or personal representative) believes the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps. May still be dishonest even if willing to pay (s.2(2)). Otherwise the Ivey test |
| Appropriates | s.3 | Any assumption of the rights of an owner, including a later assumption by keeping or dealing with property as owner after coming by it innocently. A good faith buyer for value is protected against later theft of what he thought he was getting (s.3(2)). The CPS guidance cites DPP v Gomez: appropriation does not require adverse interference with the owner's rights, so consent does not prevent it |
| Property | s.4 | Money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. Land generally cannot be stolen, subject to three exceptions (s.4(2)). Wild mushrooms, flowers, fruit and foliage are not stolen by picking unless for reward, sale or other commercial purpose (s.4(3)). Wild creatures not tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity cannot be stolen unless reduced into possession (s.4(4)) |
| Belonging to another | s.5 | Anyone with possession or control, or a proprietary right or interest. Extended for trusts (s.5(2)), property received under an obligation to deal with it in a particular way (s.5(3)) and property got by mistake with an obligation to restore it (s.5(4)). The CPS guidance cites R v Turner: an owner can steal his own car from a garage in possession of it |
| Intention of permanently depriving | s.6 | Treating the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights is enough. Borrowing counts only if for a period and in circumstances equivalent to an outright taking. Parting with property under a condition as to its return that he may not be able to perform can amount to the same (s.6(2)) |
What is not property for theft
- Land, except where a trustee or person authorised to dispose of land deals with it in breach of confidence, where someone not in possession severs something from it, or where a tenant appropriates a fixture or structure let with the land (s.4(2)).
- Wild mushrooms, flowers, fruit and foliage picked from a plant growing wild, unless picked for reward, sale or other commercial purpose. "Mushroom" includes any fungus; "plant" includes any shrub or tree (s.4(3)).
- Wild creatures not tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity, and their carcases, unless reduced into possession by or for someone and not lost or abandoned, or in the course of being reduced into possession (s.4(4)).
- Electricity is dealt with by its own offence of dishonestly using, wasting or diverting it (s.13), not by theft.
Obligations and mistakes: sections 5(3) and 5(4)
These two subsections are where many theft questions are hidden. Under s.5(3), if a person receives property from or on account of another and is under an obligation to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, it is treated as belonging to the other as against him: think of money collected for a specific purpose. Under s.5(4), if a person gets property by another's mistake and is under an obligation to make restoration, it belongs to the person entitled to restoration to that extent, and an intention not to restore is an intention to deprive. An overpayment of wages that the employee knowingly keeps is the classic shape.
Dishonesty after Ivey and Barton
Dishonesty is examined twice in the NIE: as a mens rea topic in Part 1 (the September 2026 breakdown lists "Dishonestly" under mens rea) and as the first element of theft in Part 3. The structure is the same either way.
- Check s.2(1) first. If the defendant believed he had a legal right to deprive, believed the owner would consent if he knew, or believed the owner could not be found by taking reasonable steps, the appropriation is not dishonest. These are beliefs, so they only have to be genuine.
- Remember s.2(2). Willingness to pay does not by itself stop an appropriation being dishonest.
- Otherwise apply the two-stage test. In R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575 the Court of Appeal set out the test proposed in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67: (a) what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts, and (b) was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? The court held that Ivey, not R v Ghosh, should be followed in criminal cases.
Under Ghosh there was a second, subjective question: did the defendant realise that ordinary decent people would regard what he did as dishonest? That question has gone. An option that says "he is not dishonest because he did not realise others would think it dishonest" is wrong. His genuine beliefs about the facts still matter, because stage one asks what he actually knew or believed.
Note also that dishonesty is an element of theft, handling, fraud, false accounting and obtaining services, but the CPS guidance states that it is not an element of blackmail, which has its own "unwarranted" test. Money laundering and criminal damage use other mental elements altogether ("knows or suspects", and intention or recklessness).
Robbery: section 8
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force (s.8(1)). Robbery, and assault with intent to rob, carry life imprisonment (s.8(2)).
- There must be a theft. The CPS guidance cites R v Mitchell [2008]: where a car was forcibly taken and later abandoned, the violence did not supply the missing intention to permanently deprive. No theft, no robbery.
- Force on any person. It need not be the owner. Whether something amounts to force is a question of fact: the CPS guidance cites R v Clouden (wrenching a basket from a hand could be force) and P v DPP [2012] (snatching a cigarette from between the fingers without contact was not force on the person).
- Timing. Force must be immediately before or at the time of stealing. The CPS guidance cites R v Hale and R v Lockley for the point that appropriation can continue, so force used while the theft is still in progress can be in time.
- Purpose. The force must be used in order to steal. Force for some other reason alongside a theft is not robbery.
- "Seeks to put" in fear. Robbery can be committed whether or not the victim is actually frightened.
Blackmail: section 21
A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces (s.21(1)). A demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it believes both (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing it. The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and so is whether the menaces relate to action by the person making the demand (s.21(2)). Maximum: fourteen years (s.21(3)).
- Gain and loss are limited to money or other property, temporary or permanent; gain includes keeping what one has and loss includes not getting what one might get (s.34(2)(a)). The CPS guidance cites R v Bevans: a demand at gunpoint for a morphine injection was a demand for property.
- Two beliefs, both genuine. A real debt can support the first belief. It does not answer the second: the defendant must also believe the menaces are a proper way to enforce it.
- Dishonesty is not an element (CPS guidance). Do not import the Ivey test into a blackmail question.
- Goods obtained by blackmail are stolen goods for handling (s.24(4)).
Burglary: section 9
Burglary has two forms. Both need entry into a building or part of a building as a trespasser. The maximum is fourteen years if the building or part is a dwelling and ten years otherwise (s.9(3)). An inhabited vehicle or vessel counts as a building, and as a dwelling, even when the person living in it is not there (s.9(4)).
| Form | Entry | What else | Key point |
|---|---|---|---|
| s.9(1)(a) | Enters as a trespasser | With intent at entry to steal, inflict GBH or do unlawful damage (s.9(2)) | Complete on entry. Nothing need happen afterwards |
| s.9(1)(b) | Having entered as a trespasser | Steals or attempts to steal, or inflicts or attempts to inflict GBH | No intent needed at entry. Damage is not in this list |
Entry, building, trespasser
- Entry. The CPS guidance cites R v Brown (1985) and R v Ryan (1996): partial entry is enough, so putting part of the body into the building is capable of being entry.
- Building. Not fully defined. The CPS guidance cites Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (a lorry trailer used for storage was still a vehicle, not a building) and B v Leathley (a freezer container in a farmyard was a building).
- Part of a building. A person allowed in one part is a trespasser if he enters a part he is not allowed into, such as behind a shop counter or a staff room (CPS guidance).
- Trespasser. He must be a trespasser at entry and know it, or be reckless about it. Entering for a purpose he knows is outside the permission given can make him a trespasser: the CPS guidance cites R v Jones, where a son with general permission to enter his father's house went there to steal two televisions.
- Conditional intent (3.4.4). The syllabus has a sub-section on it. The usual exam point is that a burglar who enters intending to steal whatever he finds worth taking has the intent to steal, even if he has no particular item in mind. Read the Manual's treatment and the cases it cites.
Where the burglary relies on stealing (intent to steal for s.9(1)(a), or stealing for s.9(1)(b)), all the elements of theft must be proved. A trespasser who takes back something he genuinely believes is his own has the s.2(1)(a) belief, so there is no theft and no burglary based on stealing.
Aggravated burglary: section 10
A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive (s.10(1)). Maximum: life (s.10(2)).
- Firearm includes an airgun or air pistol; imitation firearm is anything with the appearance of a firearm, whether or not capable of being discharged (s.10(1)(a)).
- Weapon of offence is any article made or adapted for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use (s.10(1)(b)). The CPS guidance cites R v Kelly: a screwdriver brought to break in and then used on an occupant in the heat of the moment was a weapon of offence. This is wider than the offensive weapon definition in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.
- Explosive is any article manufactured to produce a practical effect by explosion, or intended for that purpose (s.10(1)(c)).
- "Has with him" can extend beyond physical carrying, depending on how accessible and close the item is (R v Henderson, per CPS guidance).
- "At the time" depends on the form of burglary. R v O'Leary (per CPS guidance): for s.9(1)(b), the time of the theft or grievous bodily harm; for s.9(1)(a), the time of entry.
Handling stolen goods: sections 22 to 27
A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so (s.22(1)). Maximum: fourteen years (s.22(2)). Chapter 3.6 of the syllabus also covers the power to search for stolen goods and the special evidence rules, which are easy marks if you have read them.
| Point | The rule | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Forms of handling | Receiving; undertaking or assisting in retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another; arranging to do either | The CPS guidance cites Griffiths v Freeman: handling is one offence that can be committed in several ways |
| Mental element | Knowing or believing the goods to be stolen, and dishonesty | Belief is what the statute says. The goods must actually be stolen at the time of handling |
| 'Otherwise than in the course of the stealing' | The original thief stealing is not handling at that moment | Stops every thief also being a handler |
| Proceeds (s.24(2)) | Goods that directly or indirectly represent the stolen goods in the hands of the thief or a handler | Money an innocent buyer later gets by reselling is not stolen goods (CPS guidance example) |
| Ceasing to be stolen (s.24(3)) | Restored to the owner or to other lawful possession or custody, or the right to restitution is lost | Consider arranging, or attempting to handle, if police took custody first |
| Blackmail and fraud (s.24(4)) | Goods obtained by blackmail or by fraud within the Fraud Act 2006 are regarded as stolen | A common distractor is 'no theft, so no handling' |
| Search warrant (s.26) | A justice of the peace may grant a warrant to search for and seize stolen goods on information on oath of reasonable cause to believe a person has them | The person executing it may seize any goods he believes to be stolen (s.26(3)) |
| Evidence of knowledge (s.27(3)) | Where the only charge is handling, evidence of other stolen goods handled from thefts not earlier than 12 months before, and (with 7 days' written notice) theft or handling convictions in the previous 5 years, is admissible to prove knowledge or belief | Only once evidence of the handling itself has been given |
For the investigation side of a handling case (searching premises, seizure and the PACE Codes), see the PACE Codes for the NIE guide.
Fraud: the Fraud Act 2006 and false accounting
Fraud is one offence committed in three ways (s.1): false representation (s.2), failing to disclose information (s.3) or abuse of position (s.4). Maximum: ten years on indictment (s.1(3)(b)). Each way requires dishonesty and an intention to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another or expose another to a risk of loss. None requires the gain or loss to happen.
| Offence | Section | Elements and maximum |
|---|---|---|
| Fraud by false representation | s.2 | Dishonestly makes a false representation (untrue or misleading, and he knows it is or might be) intending gain or loss. Representation of fact or law, including a state of mind; express or implied; can be made to a system or device |
| Fraud by failing to disclose | s.3 | Dishonestly fails to disclose information he is under a legal duty to disclose, intending gain or loss |
| Fraud by abuse of position | s.4 | Occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against, another's financial interests, and dishonestly abuses it, intending gain or loss. Can be an omission (s.4(2)) |
| Gain and loss | s.5 | Money or other property only, temporary or permanent. Gain includes keeping what one has; loss includes not getting what one might get |
| Possession of articles | s.6 | Has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. Five years |
| Making or supplying articles | s.7 | Makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply an article knowing it is designed or adapted for fraud, or intending it to be used for fraud. Ten years |
| Obtaining services dishonestly | s.11 | Obtains services by a dishonest act, without paying in full, knowing they are made available on the basis of payment (or might be) and intending not to pay in full. Five years. Needs the services actually obtained |
| False accounting | Theft Act 1968 s.17 | Dishonestly, with a view to gain or intent to cause loss, destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies an account or record made or required for an accounting purpose, or uses a misleading one. Seven years |
- A representation of a state of mind counts (s.2(3)): "I will pay you on Friday" said with no intention of paying is a false representation.
- Legal duty, not moral duty, for s.3. If the facts give no legal duty to disclose, s.3 does not fit.
- Fraud articles go under s.6, not going equipped. Section 25 Theft Act covers burglary and theft only, and in any case is not in the NIE Part 3 list.
- Fraud and obtaining services differ on result. Section 11 requires that services are actually obtained; s.2 does not require anything to be obtained.
Proceeds of crime: the money laundering offences
Chapter 3.8 covers the three principal money laundering offences in Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, with the definitions of criminal conduct and criminal property. All three carry fourteen years on indictment (s.334(1)).
| Section | Offence or term | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| s.327 | Concealing etc | Conceals, disguises, converts or transfers criminal property, or removes it from England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland |
| s.328 | Arrangements | Enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement he knows or suspects facilitates the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or for another |
| s.329 | Acquisition, use and possession | Acquires, uses or has possession of criminal property. Extra exception where he acquired, used or possessed it for adequate consideration (s.329(2)(c)) |
| All three | Exceptions | An authorised disclosure under s.338 (with appropriate consent if made before the act), an intended disclosure with reasonable excuse for not making it, or carrying out a law enforcement function. Further exceptions exist for overseas conduct lawful where it occurred and for banks and regulated businesses below a threshold amount |
| s.340(3) | Criminal property | Constitutes or represents a person's benefit from criminal conduct (in whole or part, directly or indirectly) and the alleged offender knows or suspects that it does |
| s.340(2) | Criminal conduct | Conduct that is an offence in any part of the UK, or would be if it occurred there. It does not matter who carried it out or who benefited (s.340(4)) |
- Knows or suspects. The mental element is built into the definition of criminal property (s.340(3)(b)), so suspicion is enough for all three offences.
- Proving the property is criminal. The CPS guidance cites R v Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354: the prosecution need not prove a specific offence, and can rely on circumstances giving rise to an irresistible inference that the property could only have come from crime.
- Adequate consideration (s.329 only). A tradesman paid a proper price for ordinary goods or services is the example the CPS gives. It does not apply to s.327 or s.328.
- Overlap with handling. The CPS guidance notes POCA offences may be charged as alternatives to handling. Drug money is criminal property but is not stolen goods.
Criminal damage and arson
Chapter 3.9 covers the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and contamination of goods. The definitions in s.10 decide many questions: property means property of a tangible nature, including money and tamed or captive wild creatures, but not mushrooms growing wild or the flowers, fruit or foliage of wild plants. Property belongs to anyone with custody or control, a proprietary right or interest, or a charge on it. Modifying the contents of a computer is not damage unless it impairs the physical condition of the computer or storage medium (s.10(5)).
| Offence | Provision | Elements | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple damage | s.1(1) | Without lawful excuse destroys or damages property belonging to another, intending to or reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged | Ten years (s.4(2)) |
| Aggravated damage | s.1(2) | Without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property (his own included), intending or reckless as to damage, and intending or reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered by the damage | Life (s.4(1)) |
| Arson | s.1(3) | An offence under s.1 committed by destroying or damaging property by fire is charged as arson | Life (s.4(1)) |
| Threats | s.2 | Without lawful excuse threatens to destroy or damage another's property, or his own in a way he knows is likely to endanger life, intending the other to fear it would be carried out | Ten years |
| Articles with intent | s.3 | Has anything in his custody or control intending, without lawful excuse, to use it (or cause or permit another to) to destroy or damage another's property, or his own in a way he knows is likely to endanger life | Ten years |
| Racially or religiously aggravated | Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.30 | A s.1(1) offence that is racially or religiously aggravated | Fourteen years |
| Contamination of goods | Public Order Act 1986 s.38 | Contaminates or interferes with goods (or makes it appear so, or places such goods) intending public alarm or anxiety, injury to consumers, or economic loss; also threats, claims and possession of materials | Ten years |
Recklessness
Recklessness here is subjective. The House of Lords in R v G [2003] UKHL 50 replaced the objective Caldwell test. As the CPS describes the test, the person must have been aware of a risk, and in the circumstances known to him it was unreasonable to take it. A child who did not appreciate a risk an adult would have seen is not reckless on that basis.
Lawful excuse: section 5
- Consent belief (s.5(2)(a)): he believed the person entitled to consent had consented or would have consented if they had known of the damage and its circumstances.
- Protection of property (s.5(2)(b)): he acted to protect property, or a right or interest in it, believing it was in immediate need of protection and that the means used were reasonable in all the circumstances.
- Honest belief is enough (s.5(3)): it is immaterial whether the belief is justified, if honestly held.
- Not for life-endangering offences. Section 5 applies to s.1(1) and to s.2 and s.3 offences, but not to s.1(2) or to the life-endangering forms of ss.2 and 3 (s.5(1)). Other recognised defences are preserved (s.5(5)).
What is not in NIE Part 3 (but is in other syllabuses)
Many generic Theft Act revision lists, including the Sergeant and Inspector syllabus, include vehicle taking, going equipped and making off. None of these appears in the Part 3 chapter list in Appendix A of the 2026 NIE handbook, and we found no mention of them elsewhere in that appendix. The appendix is a list of the Manual's headings, so read it as the College's own map of what is examinable.
| Offence | Provision | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Taking a conveyance without consent | Theft Act 1968 s.12 | Summary only: level 5 fine, six months or both (s.12(2)) |
| Aggravated vehicle-taking | Theft Act 1968 s.12A | Not in the 2026 NIE Appendix A |
| Going equipped | Theft Act 1968 s.25 | Three years (s.25(2)). Covers articles for burglary or theft, not fraud (fraud articles are s.6 Fraud Act, which is in Part 3) |
| Making off without payment | Theft Act 1978 s.3 | Not in the 2026 NIE Appendix A. Obtaining services dishonestly (Fraud Act s.11) is |
| Retaining a wrongful credit | Theft Act 1968 s.24A | Not listed as its own sub-section. Its link to handling (cash withdrawn from a wrongful credit treated as stolen) is mentioned in CPS guidance |
The handbook says the exam is drawn solely from the 2026 Manual's syllabus. Time spent on TWOC elements is time not spent on POCA or s.5 lawful excuse. These offences still matter in investigative practice, so learn them for the job, after the exam. If your copy of the Manual covers them in a part that is not examined, the same applies.
Maximum penalties: quick reference
| Offence | Provision | Maximum on indictment |
|---|---|---|
| Theft | Theft Act 1968 s.7 | Seven years |
| Robbery and assault with intent to rob | s.8(2) | Life |
| Blackmail | s.21(3) | Fourteen years |
| Burglary of a dwelling | s.9(3)(a) | Fourteen years |
| Burglary, other building | s.9(3)(b) | Ten years |
| Aggravated burglary | s.10(2) | Life |
| Handling stolen goods | s.22(2) | Fourteen years |
| False accounting | s.17(1) | Seven years |
| Fraud | Fraud Act 2006 s.1(3) | Ten years |
| Possession of articles for fraud | s.6(2) | Five years |
| Making or supplying articles for fraud | s.7(2) | Ten years |
| Obtaining services dishonestly | s.11(3) | Five years |
| Money laundering (ss.327 to 329) | POCA 2002 s.334(1) | Fourteen years |
| Arson; damage endangering life | Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.4(1) | Life |
| Other Criminal Damage Act offences | s.4(2) | Ten years |
| Racially or religiously aggravated damage | Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.30(2) | Fourteen years |
| Contamination of goods | Public Order Act 1986 s.38(4) | Ten years |
The handbook says candidates will not be examined on information found only in the Manual's tables, so do not spend hours memorising this table. Maximums still help you reason: if an option says handling is "less serious than theft", the fourteen-year maximum against theft's seven tells you otherwise.
The traps
Part 3 questions usually turn on one fact in the stem. Read for timing (when the intent was formed, when the force was used, when the weapon was picked up), for status (whether goods were still stolen, whether a belief only had to be honest) and for what the property is.
| Trap | Typical stem | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Consent means no appropriation | Owner hands over property after being tricked | Consent does not prevent appropriation (Gomez, per CPS guidance). Look at dishonesty, and at fraud |
| You cannot steal your own property | Owner takes his car back from the garage without paying for repairs | Property belongs to anyone with possession or control (s.5(1)). The CPS guidance cites R v Turner |
| Using the old Ghosh test | 'He did not think ordinary people would see it as dishonest' | Irrelevant after Ivey and Barton. The question is the ordinary decent person standard, applied to what he actually knew or believed |
| Robbery without a theft | Car forcibly taken for a joyride and abandoned | No intention to permanently deprive means no theft, and no theft means no robbery (R v Mitchell, per CPS guidance) |
| Future threats as robbery | 'Hand it over or I'll get you next week' | Robbery needs fear of force then and there. Consider theft and blackmail |
| Damage after a non-criminal entry | Trespasser enters to sleep, then smashes a window | No s.9(1)(a) intent at entry, and damage is not a s.9(1)(b) act. Criminal damage, not burglary |
| Permission to enter | Son with general permission enters father's house to steal | Entering for a purpose he knows is outside the permission can make him a trespasser (R v Jones, per CPS guidance) |
| Weapon timing | Unarmed entry, knife picked up inside, then theft | For s.9(1)(b), the time of the theft counts (O'Leary). For s.9(1)(a), entry is the time |
| Goods restored to lawful custody | Police seize goods then run a controlled delivery | No longer stolen (s.24(3)). Consider attempt or arranging |
| Blackmail needs dishonesty | 'He honestly believed he was owed the money' | Dishonesty is not an element. The demand is warranted only if he believed both that he had reasonable grounds and that the menaces were a proper means |
| Fraud needs a victim who was fooled | Stolen card details entered online, payment declined | Section 2 is complete when the dishonest false representation is made with the intent. A system or device can receive it |
| Knowledge needed for money laundering | 'She only suspected the cash was drug money' | Suspicion is enough for criminal property (s.340(3)(b)) |
| Wild flowers and computer data | Picking wild flowers to keep; deleting files | Wild flowers are not property for criminal damage (s.10(1)(b)) and are not stolen by picking unless commercial (s.4(3)). Modifying computer contents is not damage unless it impairs physical condition (s.10(5)) |
| Lawful excuse must be reasonable | Honest but mistaken belief the owner consented | Under s.5(3) the belief need not be justified if honestly held. It only covers ss.1(1), 2 and 3 offences not involving danger to life |
Distractors often offer the heavier offence: robbery for a future threat, aggravated burglary for a weapon picked up after a s.9(1)(a) entry, aggravated damage with no risk to life. The right answer is the offence whose elements the facts satisfy, which can be the lesser one.
Worked scenarios: reasoning through the facts
Short reasoning exercises. Each one shows the order in which to test the elements, which is the habit that wins Part 3 marks.
A detective constable's payroll record is wrongly set and she is paid £600 too much. She notices on payday and decides to say nothing and spend it. Property: the extra credit in her bank account is a thing in action, which s.4(1) includes. Belonging to another: she got it by the employer's mistake and is under an obligation to make restoration, so to that extent it belongs to the employer (s.5(4)). Appropriation: a later assumption of rights by keeping and dealing with it as owner (s.3(1)). Intention to permanently deprive: s.5(4) treats an intention not to restore as an intention to deprive. Dishonesty: none of the s.2(1) beliefs fits, so apply Ivey and Barton. Each element has a section number; say it as you go.
A man grabs a handbag from a woman's shoulder; she holds on and he pulls until the strap breaks, then runs. Theft is clear. The question is force: he used force on a person, at the time of stealing, and in order to steal. Whether a snatch amounts to force is a question of fact (Clouden, per CPS guidance), and pulling against her grip points towards robbery. Compare the cigarette case, P v DPP, where taking without contact with the person was held not to be force on the person. In a question, look for the detail that tells you whether force was applied to the victim or only to the property.
A lawful hotel guest walks through a door marked 'Staff only' intending to take whatever cash he can find. He finds none. Part of a building: he had permission for public areas only, so he entered the staff room as a trespasser (CPS guidance on parts of buildings). Intent at entry: to steal, even with no particular item in mind (the conditional intent point in syllabus 3.4.4). Section 9(1)(a) is complete on entry. Finding nothing does not matter. The maximum depends on whether the part entered is a dwelling, which the CPS guidance treats as a question of fact; a staff room is unlikely to be one.
A paid carer uses her elderly client's bank card to withdraw £200 'to cover expenses' she has not incurred. Fraud by abuse of position (s.4 Fraud Act 2006) fits: she occupies a position in which she is expected to safeguard the client's financial interests and dishonestly abuses it intending gain. Fraud by false representation (s.2) may also fit if she uses the card at a cash machine, because entering the PIN implies authority and a representation can be made to a device (s.2(5)). Theft remains available. An exam question will usually signal which offence it wants through the facts it gives: a position of trust points to s.4.
A man sets fire to his own shed to claim insurance. The fire spreads towards a neighbour's fence. Simple damage under s.1(1) needs property belonging to another, so the shed alone does not qualify. Arson is a s.1 offence committed by fire (s.1(3)), so it attaches to the s.1(1) offence if he intended or was reckless about damage to the neighbour's fence. If he was reckless about endangering life, s.1(2) applies to his own property too, and that offence by fire is arson with a life maximum. The insurance claim is a fraud question, separately.
Myths about Part 3
- "Consent means it cannot be theft." Appropriation does not require adverse interference with the owner's rights (Gomez, per CPS guidance). Consent obtained by a trick goes to dishonesty and to fraud, not to whether there was an appropriation.
- "The intent for burglary always has to exist on entry." Only for s.9(1)(a). Section 9(1)(b) is committed by stealing or inflicting grievous bodily harm after a trespassing entry, with no intent required at entry.
- "Handling is a lesser offence than theft." Handling carries fourteen years; theft carries seven. The handler is often treated as the person who keeps thieves in business.
- "Money laundering needs proof of the original crime." The prosecution can rely on circumstances giving rise to an irresistible inference that property could only have come from crime (Anwoir, per CPS guidance), and the defendant need only suspect it.
- "Lawful excuse needs a reasonable belief." Section 5(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971: an honestly held belief is enough, whether or not justified.
- "Recklessness means not thinking about an obvious risk." That was the old Caldwell approach. After R v G the defendant must have been aware of the risk.
- "Every Theft Act offence is in Part 3." The 2026 NIE Part 3 list does not include taking a conveyance, going equipped or making off. Use the handbook's list.
Five worked questions
These are original practice questions written by us from the statutes and the CPS guidance cited on this page. They are not real, past or recalled NIE questions, and they are not endorsed by the College of Policing or Oxford University Press. The College forbids candidates from sharing exam questions or topic areas, and we do not use any.
During heavy rain HARDY walks into a detached garage at a neighbour's house without permission, intending only to shelter. While inside he becomes angry, kicks the garage door panel and dents it. As he leaves he takes a bicycle from the garage, intending to keep it. Which of the following is correct?
Entering to shelter is not an intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage, so s.9(1)(a) fails (option A). Damage is not one of the acts in s.9(1)(b), which lists stealing and grievous bodily harm only (option B). Section 9(1)(b) needs no intent at entry: having entered as a trespasser, he stole the bicycle, so burglary is complete at that point. Option D is wrong because it overlooks s.9(1)(b). The damage is still a separate criminal damage offence.
Source: Theft Act 1968 s.9(1) and (2); Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1(1)
Officers recover 12 stolen laptops from a van and take them into police custody. With the owner's agreement they arrange a controlled delivery, and KAUR collects the laptops from an undercover officer, paying cash and saying 'I know these are hot.' Which of the following is most accurate?
Section 24(3) Theft Act 1968 says goods are no longer stolen after they have been restored to the person from whom they were stolen or to other lawful possession or custody. Once in police custody they were not stolen goods when she received them, so the full offence fails (option A). Her belief that they were stolen is the basis for an attempt under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which the CPS guidance identifies as the alternative (option C is too absolute). She has not appropriated property belonging to another dishonestly in the theft sense on these facts (option D).
Source: Theft Act 1968 ss.22 and 24(3); CPS Theft Act offences guidance (handling)
PRICE paints over a mural on his neighbour's garden wall. He honestly believed, wrongly and without good reason, that his neighbour had asked him to repaint the wall. Which statement is correct?
Section 5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act 1971 treats a person as having a lawful excuse if he believed that the person entitled to consent had consented, or would have consented. Section 5(3) says it is immaterial whether a belief is justified if it is honestly held, so option A is wrong. Section 5 applies to the s.1(1) offence, which by definition involves property belonging to another (option C). Aggravated damage under s.1(2) needs intention or recklessness as to endangering life, which the facts do not show (option D).
Source: Criminal Damage Act 1971 ss.1 and 5
ELLIS lets her partner pay £8,000 in cash into her bank account. She suspects, but does not know, that it is profit from his drug supply. A week later, at his request, she transfers the money to his brother. Which of the following is correct?
Property is criminal property if it constitutes or represents a benefit from criminal conduct and the alleged offender knows or suspects that it does (s.340(3)). Suspicion is enough, so option A is wrong. Transferring criminal property is an offence under s.327(1)(d). Drug supply profits are not stolen goods within ss.22 and 24 Theft Act 1968 (option B). Personal gain is not an element of s.327 (option D). Depending on the facts, s.328 arrangements may also fit.
Source: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ss.327 and 340
OKAFOR enters someone else's card details into an online checkout to buy trainers, intending the cardholder's bank to pay. The payment is declined by the bank's automated system and no goods are sent. Which is correct?
Section 2 Fraud Act 2006 is committed when a person dishonestly makes a false representation intending to make a gain or cause loss or risk of loss. By s.2(5) a representation may be regarded as made if submitted to any system or device designed to receive or respond to communications. The offence turns on the representation and intention, not on any result, so options A and D are wrong. Possession of articles under s.6 may also be charged, but it is not the only offence (option C).
Source: Fraud Act 2006 ss.1, 2 and 5
More in a timed, mixed format: our free NIE mini mock covers all four parts, and the free practice questions page has more with explanations. Both are ours. The Manual remains the syllabus.
Law changes since the Manual: what the exam does with them
The handbook is clear: candidates are examined on the law only as it appears in the 2026 edition of the Manual. Changes to legislation or case law after publication are examined only in exceptional circumstances and only after suitable prior notice from the College. On 11 October 2026 we found no NIE syllabus update on the handbook we hold. That means you answer from the Manual, even if the law has since moved.
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 is the main source of pending change in this area. On 11 October 2026 legislation.gov.uk showed these property-related provisions as not yet in force:
- Section 47: makes theft from a shop triable either way irrespective of the value of the goods (removing the current low-value rule).
- Section 171: a new power to search without warrant for electronically tracked stolen goods.
- Sections 149 to 156: new offences about electronic devices for use in vehicle offences, SIM farms and other specified articles.
- Section 45: a new offence of assaulting a retail worker (a Part 2 topic rather than Part 3).
Only three commencement regulations under the Act were listed on 11 October 2026, and none of them brings these sections into force. More can follow at any time, so check legislation.gov.uk for the job. For the exam, none of this changes the answer unless the College issues a syllabus update.
Part 3 revision checklist
- Write out s.1 and name the section that defines each element.
- List the three s.2(1) beliefs and state s.2(2).
- State the Ivey and Barton two-stage test and explain why the Ghosh second limb has gone.
- Explain s.5(3) and s.5(4) with one example each.
- Explain s.6(1) borrowing and s.6(2) conditional parting.
- For robbery: no theft, no robbery; force then and there; in order to steal; any person.
- Give both blackmail beliefs and say why dishonesty is not an element.
- Draw s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) side by side, with the lists of acts for each.
- Apply the s.10 timing rule to each form of burglary.
- State s.24(2), (3) and (4), the s.26 warrant and the s.27(3) evidence rule with its 12 months, 5 years and 7 days.
- Name the three ways of committing fraud and the s.6, s.7 and s.11 offences, and say which needs a result.
- State ss.327, 328 and 329, the s.340(3) definition and the s.329 adequate consideration exception.
- Distinguish s.1(1) and s.1(2) criminal damage, and know which offences s.5 lawful excuse covers.
- Explain subjective recklessness after R v G.
- Do at least two timed mixed sets that include Part 3 questions before Tuesday, 17 November 2026.
Next: NIE Part 4: sexual offences, then build a plan with the free NIE revision timetable. If you want a timed bank weighted like the real paper, our NIE exam prep toolkit (ours, paid) does that; it does not replace the Manual.
What we could not verify
- The Manual's own wording. We worked from the statutes, the College handbook and CPS guidance, not from the Manual. Where the Manual's emphasis differs, the exam follows the Manual.
- Case law read second-hand. We read the judgment in Barton and Booth on Find Case Law. Every other case on this page (Gomez, Turner, Hale, Lockley, Clouden, P v DPP, Mitchell, Brown, Ryan, Jones, Seekings and Gould, B v Leathley, Kelly, Henderson, O'Leary, Griffiths v Freeman, Bevans, Anwoir) is cited as described in CPS legal guidance read on 11 October 2026. The R v G judgment could not be opened (BAILII blocked automated access), so its test is stated as the CPS describes it.
- Conditional intent cases. We have described the principle but not named the authorities, because we could not open them. Use the Manual's section 3.4.4.
- Low-value thresholds. We have not covered the value rules for mode of trial in criminal damage or shop theft, which are procedural points the Manual handles in its own way.
- 2027 syllabus. The 2027 handbook had not been published when we checked. Part 3's chapter list may change for 2027 sittings.
- Future questions. The September 2026 Part 3 count is one sitting. The College says it should not be used to predict later papers.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Part 3 of the NIE syllabus cover?
Appendix A of the College of Policing's 2026 NIE candidate handbook lists nine chapters in Part 3 (Property offences): theft and related offences, robbery, blackmail, burglary, aggravated burglary, handling stolen goods, fraud, proceeds of crime, and criminal damage. Criminal damage includes arson, threats, having articles with intent and contamination of goods. The exam tests the law as it appears in the 2026 Blackstone's Police Investigators' Manual.
How many NIE questions come from property offences?
In the September 2026 sitting, the College's own subject area breakdown shows 11 of the 70 scored questions came from Part 3, and 1 further Part 3 question was removed at marking. The College says the breakdown is valid only for that sitting and should not be used to predict later papers, so treat it as a rough guide to weight, not a promise.
What is the test for dishonesty in theft now?
First check the three situations in s.2(1) Theft Act 1968 where an appropriation is not dishonest. Outside those, the test comes from Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 as adopted for criminal cases in R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575: what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts, and was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? The old second Ghosh question, whether the defendant realised ordinary people would think it dishonest, no longer applies.
Is force after a theft robbery?
Only if it is used immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal (s.8(1)). The CPS guidance notes that once a theft is complete, later force cannot make it robbery, but it also cites R v Hale for the point that appropriation can be a continuing act, so whether the theft was still going on is a question of fact. In an exam stem, look for the facts that tell you whether the theft was still in progress when the force was used.
When must the intent exist for burglary?
For s.9(1)(a) the intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage must exist at the moment of entry as a trespasser. For s.9(1)(b) no intent is needed on entry: the offence is committed when, having entered as a trespasser, the person steals or attempts to steal, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm. Damage is in the (a) list but not the (b) list.
When does burglary become aggravated burglary?
When the person commits any burglary and at the time has with him a firearm or imitation firearm, a weapon of offence or an explosive (s.10). The CPS guidance cites R v O'Leary: for a s.9(1)(b) burglary the relevant time is when the theft or grievous bodily harm is committed, so a knife picked up inside the house can count. For a s.9(1)(a) burglary the offence is complete on entry, so an item picked up later does not make it aggravated.
Do goods stop being stolen once police seize them?
Section 24(3) Theft Act 1968 says goods are no longer stolen once restored to the person they were stolen from or to other lawful possession or custody. If police have taken the goods into lawful custody before a suspect receives them, the full handling offence may fail, and the CPS guidance says arranging to receive or attempting to handle (Criminal Attempts Act 1981) should then be considered.
Does fraud by false representation need someone to be fooled?
No. Section 2 Fraud Act 2006 is committed when a person dishonestly makes a false representation intending to make a gain or cause a loss or risk of loss. No one has to be deceived and no gain or loss has to follow. A representation can be made to a system or device, such as an online checkout or a cash machine (s.2(5)).
What is criminal property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002?
Under s.340(3), property is criminal property if it constitutes or represents a person's benefit from criminal conduct, and the alleged offender knows or suspects that it does. Suspicion is enough. The three main money laundering offences are concealing, disguising, converting, transferring or removing criminal property (s.327), arrangements (s.328), and acquisition, use and possession (s.329), each with a maximum of 14 years.
Is recklessness in criminal damage judged objectively?
No. The House of Lords in R v G [2003] UKHL 50 replaced the old objective (Caldwell) approach with a subjective one: the person must have been aware of a risk and it must have been unreasonable, in the circumstances known to them, to take it. That is how the CPS describes the R v G test in its own guidance.
Can you be guilty of criminal damage to your own property?
Not under s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971, which requires property belonging to another. But s.1(2), destroying or damaging property intending or being reckless as to endangering the life of another, applies to any property, whether belonging to the defendant or another. Damage by fire under s.1 is charged as arson, and arson and the s.1(2) offence carry life imprisonment (s.4(1)).
Are taking a vehicle without consent, going equipped and making off in the NIE?
None of them appears in the Part 3 chapter list in Appendix A of the 2026 NIE handbook, and we found no other mention of them in that appendix. They are in the Sergeant and Inspector syllabus, which is why they appear in many revision lists. Use the handbook's list for your sitting rather than a generic Theft Act checklist.
Sources and how we checked them
Every factual claim on this page was written from the sources below, read on 11 October 2026. Rules and figures change, so check the source for the date you are reading this. Where we could not confirm something from an official or independent source, the page says so rather than guessing. Spotted something out of date? See our corrections policy.
- College of Policing: NIE candidate handbook 2026 (PDF, November 2025), Appendix A — Part 3 chapter list (3.1 theft to 3.9 criminal damage, with sub-sections), the statement that the syllabus is only contained in the 2026 Manual, that questions test application rather than recall of tables, and the syllabus update rules. Read from our local copy on 11 October 2026 (accessed 11 October 2026)
- College of Policing: NIE subject area breakdown, September 2026 (PDF) — part-level count only: 11 scored Part 3 questions and 1 removed at marking. The College says it applies to that sitting only (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Theft Act 1968 (legislation.gov.uk, latest revised text) — ss.1 to 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 21, 22, 24, 24A, 26, 27 and 34 read on 11 October 2026. Also ss.12 and 25 for the 'not in Part 3' section (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Theft Act 1978, s.3 (legislation.gov.uk) — making off without payment, read for the 'not in Part 3' section only (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Fraud Act 2006, ss.1 to 7 and 11 (legislation.gov.uk) — three ways of committing fraud, gain and loss, articles offences and obtaining services dishonestly, with maximum penalties (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, ss.327 to 329, 334 and 340 (legislation.gov.uk) — the three principal money laundering offences, their exceptions (authorised disclosure, adequate consideration for s.329), the 14-year maximum in s.334(1) and the meaning of criminal conduct and criminal property in s.340 (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Criminal Damage Act 1971, ss.1 to 5 and 10 (legislation.gov.uk) — simple and aggravated damage, arson, threats, articles with intent, penalties, lawful excuse and the meaning of property (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Public Order Act 1986, s.38, and Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s.30 (legislation.gov.uk) — contamination of or interference with goods (10 years); racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage (14 years, s.30 of the 1998 Act) (accessed 11 October 2026)
- R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575 (National Archives, Find Case Law) — judgment text read on 11 October 2026: para 84 states the two-stage Ivey test; the court held that Ivey, not Ghosh, should be followed (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Crown Prosecution Service: Theft Act offences legal guidance — used for case law we could not open directly: Gomez (appropriation), Turner (theft of own car), Hale and Lockley (continuing appropriation), Clouden and P v DPP (force), Mitchell (robbery needs a theft), Brown and Ryan (partial entry), Jones (entry beyond permission), Seekings and Gould and B v Leathley (building), Kelly, Henderson and O'Leary (aggravated burglary), Griffiths v Freeman (handling a single offence), Bevans (blackmail gain), the rule that dishonesty is not an element of blackmail (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Crown Prosecution Service: Money laundering offences legal guidance — adequate consideration and R v Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354 (proving criminal origin by irresistible inference) (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Crown Prosecution Service: Misconduct in public office legal guidance — the CPS's wording of the subjective R v G recklessness test (the page gives a non-standard citation; the House of Lords judgment is [2003] UKHL 50) (accessed 11 October 2026)
- Crime and Policing Act 2026 (legislation.gov.uk) — ss.45, 47, 149, 151, 154 and 171 shown as prospective on 11 October 2026; only three commencement regulations listed (Nos 1 to 3) (accessed 11 October 2026)
On this topic elsewhere
More in this guide series
Practice and tools
Disclaimer
PolicePay.co.uk is an independent guide. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by or produced by the College of Policing or Oxford University Press (Blackstone's). Exam rules, dates, the syllabus and prices change, so check the College of Policing's current NIE candidate handbook and exam page before you register or buy. Practice material on this site is original and is not real or recalled exam content. Details apply to England and Wales unless stated. Details are as checked on 11 October 2026.