Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A Level Law Paper 1 > 1B.4.1 Theft > Flashcards

1B.4.1 Theft Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Define theft

A

Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive - s1 Theft Act 1968

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Which act governs the law on theft?

A

Theft Act 1968

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

S1 Theft Act 1968

A

Definition of Theft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

S2 Theft Act 1968

A

What dishonesty is not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

S3 Theft Act 1968

A

Appropriation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

S4 Theft Act 1968

A

Property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

S5 Theft Act 1968

A

Belonging to another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

S6 Theft Act 1968

A

Intention to permanently deprive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

S7 Theft Act 1968

A

Sentencing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sentence for theft

A

Up to 7 years imprisonment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is meant by dishonesty?

A

Was what the defendant did honest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people?

(Ivey v Genting, Barton and Booth)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What type of offence is theft?
(Summary/Triable-either-way/Indictable)

A

Triable-either-way

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

S2 Dishonesty is not…

A

2(1)a – The defendant believes they have the right to deprive the victim, for self or someone else.

2(1)b – The defendant believes they knew would have other’s consent if the victim knew of the appropriation.

2(1)c – Belief that the property owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)

[Dishonesty]

A

Facts: D was cheating whilst gambling. He was signed to a contract which implied a term that he would not cheat. He won £7.7m but was refused payment.

Legal principle: Courts will decide what the D believed and whether the D’s actions are dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest members of society (the jury).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Barton and Booth (2020)

[Dishonesty]

A

Facts: Barton and Booth ran a care home and used their positions to steal over £4m from elderly and dependent residents.

Legal principle: The CA confirmed that the test for dishonesty in criminal cases was that set out in Ivey v Genting (2017) and not in R v Ghosh (1982)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Small (1987)

[Dishonesty]

A

Facts: D noticed an old car parked on the road for some time with the key in the ignition. Parts were missing and there was no petrol in it. The D thought the car had been dumped and got in it and took it for a drive. D not guilty of theft as there is no requirement for D’s belief to be reasonable. (A reasonable person would have contacted the DVLA).

Legal principle: There is no requirement that the defendant’s belief is reasonable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

R v Holden (1991)

[Dishonesty]

A

Facts: D was charged with theft of scrap tyres from his workplace. He claimed that other people had taken tyres with the permission of the supervisor. However, it was against his contract of employment His conviction was quashed as the D subjectively believed he had the right to take them.

Legal principle: D not guilty if they subjectively believed they had the right to take them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Cases for Appropriation

A
  • Morris (1984)
  • Lawrence (1972)
  • Gomez (1993)
  • Hinks (2000)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is appropriation?

A

Appropriation is the act of taking and ‘assuming the rights of an owner’.

On its own it is not theft. It is only theft when it is with the rest of the definition.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v Morris (1983)

[Appropriation]

A

Morris had switched the price labels of two items on the shelf in a supermarket. He had then put one of the items, which now had a lower price on it, into a basket provided by the store and taken the item to the checkout but had not gone through the checkout when he was arrested.

Held: Theft because he had assumed the rights of an owner when he switched the price label.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police (1972)

[Appropriation]

A

A taxi driver took too much money from the open wallet of his passenger who did not speak the same language.

Held: The consent to appropriation of the money was only to the correct amount, not the excess because of the deception.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

R v Hinks (2000)

[Appropriation]

A

The victim was of limited intelligence, but understood the concept of ownership of property and making a valid gift. The defendant described herself as his main carer. Over the course of a year, the V withdrew £60,000 from his bank account and deposited it in the D’s bank account.

Held: Even though there was a valid gift, there was appropriation.

23
Q

R v Gomez

[Appropriation]

A

D worked as a shop assistant. He had persuaded the manager to accept, in payment for goods, two cheques which he knew had no value.

The court stated that the consent to appropriate the goods was not genuine because of the deception about the value of the cheques.

24
Q

What is property?

A

s4 Theft Act 1968 defines property as:

  • Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
25
Q

R v Kelly and Lindsay

[Property]

A

D took body parts from the Royal College of Surgeons and was found guilty of theft.

Held: Dead bodies and body parts are property for the purposes of theft.

26
Q

Cases for property

A
  • Kelly and Lindsay
  • Oxford v Moss
27
Q

Oxford v Moss (1979)

[Property]

A

A student took an exam paper, read questions and returned.

Held: not theft as confidential information is not property. It would only have been theft of the paper (if it was taken).

28
Q

What is “belonging to another”?

A

s5(1) Theft Act 1968 states:
- “Property is belonging to any person having possession or control over it, or having any proprietary right or interest.” –

Owner usually has the property and controls it, but there are some exceptions.

29
Q

R v Akbar

[Property]

A

Facts: A teacher was convicted of theft after she took an exam paper and gave it to students.

30
Q

Exceptions to “belonging to another”

A
  • D’s own property - If it has been improved at a cost by someone (e.g. a car in a garage). (R v Turner)
  • Hire cars - The victim could be the owner or hirer
  • Charity donations - If charity donations are in a tin/donations bin, they are the property of charity.
31
Q

Turner (1971)

A

D left his car at a garage for repairs. It was agreed that he would pay for the repairs when he collected the car after the repairs had been completed. When repairs were almost finished, the garage left the car parked on the roadway outside its premises. D used a spare key to take the car during the night without paying for the repairs.

The garage was in possession or control of the car because, as repairers, it has a right to retain possession of the item being repaired until payment is made. D was convicted of theft.

32
Q

What is a proprietary interest?

A

Where the D owns property and is in possession and control of property, they can still be guilty of stealing it if another person has a proprietary interest in it.

  • e.g. An owner of a bank with a mortgage = owner has proprietary rights, but so do the bank.

This point was a key issue in the case of R v Webster (2006).

33
Q

R v Webster

[Belonging to another]

A

Facts: Two medals were accidentally given to D by the MoD. D sells one on eBay and is convicted of theft as the MoD retained a proprietary interest in the second medal.

34
Q

What is property under obligation?

A

There are many situations in which property (usually money) is handed over to the D on the basis that they will keep it for the owner or will deal with it in a particular way. The Theft Act 1968 has property under obligation

There must be an obligation to retain and deal with the property in a particular way.

35
Q

Key cases for property under obligation

A
  • R v Hall
  • Davidge v Bennett
  • Klineberg & Marsden
36
Q

Give an example of property under obligation

A

E.g. Claire asks Barbara to buy her some broccoli from the shop. She agrees and Claire gives her £5. Barbara buys 5 scratch cards instead. This is theft based on s5(3).

37
Q

Davidge v Burnett

[Belonging to another]

A

D was given money by her flatmates to pay the gas bill but instead she used it to buy Christmas presents.

There was a legal obligation to deal with the money in a particular way and, as she had not fulfilled that obligation she was guilty of theft.

38
Q

R v Hall (1972)

[Belonging to another]

A

The D was a travel agent who received deposits form clients for air tips to America. He paid these deposits into the firm’s general account but never organised any tickets an was unable to return the money. He was convicted of theft.

On appeal his conviction was quashed, because when he received the deposits he was not under an obligation to deal with them in a particular way.

The Court of Appeal stressed that each case depended on its facts.

39
Q

Klineberg & Marsden (1999)

[Belonging to another]

A

2 defendants operated a company which sold timeshare apartments. The Ds kept money they should have placed in a trust for customers.

Held: Ds found guilty. They were under a clear obligation to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, and they had not done this.

40
Q

Property received by mistake

A

Section 5 also provides for situations where property has been handed over to the D by another’s mistake and so has become the D’s property.

Case: A-G Ref (No. 1 of 1983) (1985)

41
Q

A-G Ref (No. 1 of 1983) (1985)

A

The D had received an overpayment of wages when her pay went into her bank account. She recognised it was an overpayment. She did not withdraw any part of the money, but did not return it.

She was convicted of theft of the property (a thing in action) as she was under an obligation to return it.

42
Q

What is intention to permanently deprive?

A

The D must have the intention to permanently deprive the other of the property.

In many situations there is no doubt that the D had some an intention, for example, where an item is taken and sold to another person or where cash is taken and spent by the D. This is true even if the D intends to replace the money later, as was shown in R v Velumyl (1989).

43
Q

R v Velumyl (1989)

[Intention to permanently deprive]

A

A company director took money from safe with intention of paying it back. Held: Guilty of theft because he would not return the exact money that he took - he would replace it with different money of same value.

He was not entitled to take the money and it did not matter that he was going to pay it back.

44
Q

[Intention to perm deprive]

How does borrowing or lending relate to the intention to permanently deprive?

A

Normally borrowing would not be an intention to permanently deprive, such as where a student takes a textbook from a fellow student’s bagt in order to read one small section and then replaces the book.

Section 6 states that borrowing is not theft unless its for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

45
Q

R v Lloyd (1985)

[Intention to permanently deprive]

A

D worked at cinema. He gave films to friends to copy then returned straight away.

Held: no theft because the films had not reduced in value, not in a changed state, and the D did not intend to permanently deprive. (It still could be another offence such as copyright, piracy or fraud).

46
Q

Cases on “appropriation”

A
  • Lawrence
  • Gomez
  • Morris
  • McPherson
47
Q

Cases on “property”

A
  • Kelly & Lindsay
  • Oxford & Moss
48
Q

Cases on “belonging to another”

A
  • Turner
49
Q

Cases on “dishonesty”

A
  • Ivey
  • Barton and Booth
  • Small
  • Holden
50
Q

Cases on “intention to permanently deprive”

A
  • Lloyd
  • Velumyl
51
Q

What type of offence is theft?

A
  • Triable-either-way
52
Q

Conditional intent

A

Another difficulty is where the D examines property to see if there is anything worth stealing. What if they decide it is not worth stealing and return it? This is what happened in R v Easom (1971).

53
Q

R v Easom (1971)

A

D picked up a handbag in a cinema, rummaged through the contents and then replaced the handbag without having taken anything. His conviction for theft of the handbag and its contents was quashed.

There was no evidence that the D had intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag or items in it so he could not be guilty of theft.

A Level Law Paper 1 (38 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions