1B Theft Flashcards
Which act and section defines theft?
s.1 Theft Act 1968
Define theft
‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.’
What are the 5 elements of theft?
s.3 Appropriation
s.4 Property
s.5 Belonging to another
s.2 Dishonesty
2.6 Intention to permanently deprive
Define appropriate
To assume the rights of the owner:
Use
Consume
Sell
Keep and use
Destroy or dispose of the property
Ratio for R v Pitham & Hehl
The offer to sell is the assumption of the rights of the owner. It did not matter whether the furniture was removed from the house or not.
There is therefore no need to touch/handle the property to appropriate it.
Ratio of R v Morris, Anderton v Burnside
The appropriation took place when there was an adverse interference with or usurpation of the rights of an owner which was at the point of switching the labels.
Ratio of Lawrence v MPC
Theft can occur even with the victim’s consent.
Consent with deception.
Ratio of Hinks
Acceptance of a gift can constitute an ‘appropriation’ despite the absence of deception.
Ratio of R v Atakpu and Abrahams
CA quashed the convictions as the moment of appropriation was when they obtained the cars. As the thefts occurred outside the UK’s jurisdiction, an appropriation has taken place and it cannot be a continuing act.
What are types of property?
Real- land or things fixed to it
Things in action-rights that can be enforced in law
Intangible- no physical property but can be stolen
What are the exceptions of property?
Wild plants, flowers, fruits and fungi
Wild creatures
Electricity
Corpses/body parts
Confidential information
Name the exception & section of:
Wild plants, flowers, fruits and fungi
It is not possible to steal if these if they are growing wild unless you intend to sell s.4(3)
Name the exception & section of:
Wild creatures
It is not possible to steal wild creatures that are not usually tame or not kept in captivity s.4(4)
Name the exception & section of:
Electricity
It is not possible to steal electricity (but it is a separate offence) under the Theft Act 1968.
Name the exception & section of:
Corpses/body parts
It is not possible to steal corpses (Sharpe).
It is possible to steal body parts.
Ratio of Oxford v Moss
It wasn’t theft of the paper because he intended to return it. However, the knowledge was appropriated but this wasn’t considered property.
Define belonging to another
They don’t have to have total proprietary interest in the stolen item, having control or possession of the property may be enough.
Ratio of R v Turner (No.2)
The D was guilty of the theft of is own car as the garage had possession and control of the car at the time it was taken.
Ratio of Ricketts
Not abandoned but remained property of the person who deposited them until taken into the control or possession of the charity.
Ratio of R v Webster
Army had retained proprietary interest in the medal so it was ‘property belonging to another’.
Ratio of Davidge v Burnett
D was held guilty of theft when he was given money by her flatmates to pay the gas bill but used it to buy presents. There was a legal obligation to pay the bill.
Ratio of Attorney General’s reference (No.1 of 1983)
There was a legal obligation to return the money received by mistake as she had noticed she had been overpaid.
Examples of not being dishonest.
a) He has a legal right to deprive the other of it on behalf of himself or a third person.
b) He would’ve had the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it.
c) The person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Ratio of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd
a) What was the actual state of D’s knowledge or belief as to the facts?
b) In the context of (a), was D’s conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
Ratio of R v Barton & Booth
Confirmed the Ivey decision as a test for dishonesty. It is objective.
Define ‘Intention to permanently deprive’
‘Intending to treat the thing as one’s own to dispose of, regardless of the others’ rights’
Ratio of DPP v Lavender
s.6 should be read as intending to treat the thing as one’s own to use regardless of the other’s rights.
Ratio of Velumyl
CA upheld his conviction for theft as he had the intention of permanently depriving the company of the exact banknotes which he has taken from the safe even if he intended replacing them with other banknotes to the same value later.
Ratio of R v Lloyd
CA- borrowing only constitutes an intention to permanently deprive if the goodness and virtue has gone from the property. The D was acquitted.
Ratio of R v Easom
The COA quashed the conviction as there may have been a conditional intention to deprive permanently but this was not enough to satisfy.
