Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

*ANEW-L-Theft > Appropriation > Flashcards

Appropriation Flashcards

1
Q

Where is theft defined?

A

in s1 of the Theft Act 1968

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

What is the definition of Theft?

A

a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

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

What section of the theft act does dishonesty come under which is part of the mens rea?

A

s.2

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

What section of the theft act does appropriates come under which is part of the actus reus?

A

s.3

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

What section of the theft act does property come under which is part of the actus reus?

A

s.4

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

What section of the theft act does belonging to another come under which is part of the actus reus?

A

s.5

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

What section of the theft act does the intention of permanently depriving the other of it come under which is part of the mens rea?

A

s.6

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

A person charged with theft is always charged with what?

A

with stealing ‘contrary to s.1 of the Theft Act 1968’

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

what is the actus reus of theft made up of?

A

the three elements in the phrase ‘appropriates property belonging to another’

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

How does the prosecution prove the actus reus of the offence?

A

if there was an appropriation by the defendant of something which is property within the deffiniton of the Act and which, at the time of the appropriation, belonged to another

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

What are the two elements which must be proved for the mens rea of theft?

A

these are that the appropriation of the property must be done ‘dishonestly’ and there must be the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it

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

What is the actus reus for theft?

A

s. 3-appropriaion
s. 4- property
s. 5 belonging to another

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

What is the mens rea for theft?

A

s. 2-dishonestly

s. 6-with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

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

What are the most obvious situations of theft?

A

those involving a physical taking

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

What does s.3 of the Theft Act 1968 state that appropriation is?

A

if the defendant has assumed the rights of an owner then this amounts to an appropriation.

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

What does the rights of the owner under s.3 of the Theft Act appropriation include? (7)

A 
selling 
destroying 
possessing 
consuming 
using 
lending 
hiring
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is a clear example of an appropriation?

A

taking goods from a shelf in the supermarket and placing them in one’s pocket or own shopping bag

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

What case is an example of an appropriation by assuming the rights to sell?

A

Pitham v Hehl

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What happened in the case of Pithham v Helh?

A

D sold furniture belonging to another person which was held to be an appropriation of the rights of an owner. it did not matter whether the furniture had been removed or not, D still appropriated the rights of the owner to sell.

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

D sold furniture belonging to another person which was held to be an appropriation of the rights of an owner. it did not matter whether the furniture had been removed or not, D still appropriated the rights of the owner to sell.
What case is this?

A

Pitham v Helh

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

the right to destroy property is also an owner’s right, what does this mean in regards to destruction?

A

this means that if D destroys property belonging to another person, D can be charged with theft, and also criminal damage

22
Q

What is the wording of s.3 of the theft Act 1968?

A

‘any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner’

23
Q

What is one question which the courts have had to deal with regarding the appropriation of the rights of the owner of theft?

A

whether or not the assumption has to be of all the rights of the owner or whether it can just be any of the rights.

24
Q

What case considered whether or not the assumption has to be of all the rights of the owner or whether it can just be any of the rights?

A

Morris

25
Q

What happened in the case of Morris?

A

D switched the labels of two items in a supermarket and put it in his basket. D was arrested before he purchased the items but was convicted as he had assumed the rights of the owner

26
Q

D switched the labels of two items in a supermarket and put it in his basket. D was arrested before he purchased the items but was convicted as he had assumed the rights of the owner
What case is this/?

A

Morris

27
Q

What has the case of Morris held regarding the rights of the owner?

A

that there does not have to be an assumption of all the rights

28
Q

Why is it sensible that the case of Morris established that there does not have to be an assumption of all the rights of the owner?

A

as in most cases D would not have assumed all the rights of the owner.

29
Q

What is an area regarding consent which has caused major problems?

A

Can a defendant appropriate an item when it has been given to them by the owner?

30
Q

What does the Theft Act 1968 say regarding consent?

A

that the Theft Act does not state that the appropriation has to be without the consent of the owner

31
Q

What happened in the case of Lawrence?

A

D spoke little english and was told by a taxi driver, D, that his fare was £6 when it should have only been 50p. D argued that he had not appropriated the money as the student consented to him taking it. COA and HOL rejected this argument.

32
Q

What case considers whether the defendant is guilty of theft where the owner has allowed them to take something as they believed it was owed to them?

A

Lawrence

33
Q

D spoke little english and was told by a taxi driver, D, that his fare was £6 when it should have only been 50p. D argued that he had not appropriated the money as the student consented to him taking it. COA and HOL rejected this argument.
What case is this?

A

Lawrence

34
Q

How is the issue of consent in regards to shopping important, such as in the case of Morris?

A

as there is an implied consent from shops operating a self-service style of shopping

35
Q

What did Lord Roskill say obiter in the case of Morris regarding appropriation?

A

that where an honest customer takes goods in a supermarket, it is not appropriation

36
Q

Which judge stated obiter in the case of Morris that where an honest customer takes goods in a supermarket, it is not appropriation?

A

Lord Roskill

37
Q

Which case did the HOL reject Lord Roskill’s obiter statement from the case of Morris that where an honest customer takes goods in a supermarket, it is not appropriation?

A

Gomez

38
Q

What did the HOL hold in the case of Gomez regarding the removal of goods?

A

That any removal of goods from a shelf in a shop is an appropriation, but the complete offence of theft will only be committed if the person appropriating the goods has the required mens rea for theft

39
Q

What happened in the case of Gomez?

A

D was the assistant manager who persuaded manager to take the cheque worth £17,000 to his accomplice. The cheque was invalid, D was convicted with theft. COA quashed conviction following Morris as there had to be an ‘adverse interference.’ HOL reinstated conviction as D need not do anything contrary to the owner’s wishes as Lawrence ruled that an act may be an appropriation even with the consent of the owner

40
Q

D was the assistant manager who persuaded manager to take the cheque worth £17,000 to his accomplice. The cheque was invalid, D was convicted with theft. COA quashed conviction following Morris as there had to be an ‘adverse interference.’ HOL reinstated conviction as D need not do anything contrary to the owner’s wishes as Lawrence ruled that an act may be an appropriation even with the consent of the owner
What case is this?

A

Gomez

41
Q

What case was the problem of whether consent without deception raised?

A

Hinks

42
Q

What happened in the case of Hinks?

A

D befriended a man with low IQ and was gifted £60,000 and a television set from him. HOL ruled that there could be an appropriation even where the victim has consented.

43
Q

What is appropriation at one point in time?

A

this is where appropriation is viewed as occurring at one point in time.

44
Q

What case illustrates consent without deception?

A

Hinks

45
Q

What case illustrates appropriation at one point in time?

A

Atakpu and Abrahams

46
Q

What happened in the case of Atakpu and Abrahams?

A

D hired cars in Germany, taking them back to the UK. Arrested in Dover for theft. COA quashed convictions as the moment of appropriation under the law in Gomez was when they obtained the cars, outside english jurisdiction, not an appropriation in England.

47
Q

D hired cars in Germany, taking them back to the UK. Arrested in Dover for theft. COA quashed convictions as the moment of appropriation under the law in Gomez was when they obtained the cars, outside english jurisdiction, not an appropriation in England.
What case is this?

A

Atakpu and Abraham

48
Q

What section of the Theft Act 1968 makes clear that there can also be an appropriation where D acquires property without stealing it, but then later decides to keep or deal with the property as owner. Appropriation at the time of ‘keeping’ or ‘dealing’

A

section 3 (1)

49
Q

What does section 3 (1) say regarding a later assumption of a right of the owner?

A

the Theft Act 1968 makes clear that there can also be an appropriation where D acquires property without stealing it, but then later decides to keep or deal with the property as owner. Appropriation at the time of ‘keeping’ or ‘dealing’

50
Q

What is an example under a later assumption of a right of the owner under section 3 (1)

A

hiring a video but then deciding to keep it

*ANEW-L-Theft (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions