C3: Theft and Criminal Damage Flashcards
Where is the definition of theft?
s1(1) Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968).
What is the definition of theft?
The defendant must:
dishonestly;
appropriate;
property;
belonging to another;
with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Which parts of the definition of theft are the AR and which are the MR?
Dishonestly; - MR
appropriate; - AR
property; - AR
belonging to another; - AR
with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. - MR
Does the defendant need absolute control over the property at hand in order for their conduct to amount to an appropriation?
No, they don’t need full control. They just need to assume any of the rights of an owner, e.g. possess it, use it, consume it, destroy it, sell it, give it away, lend it, move it and price it.
Which case changed the way courts viewed theft and how much control the defendant needed over the property to amount to appropriation?
Up to 1983, it was assumed that the defendant needed to assume all the control over the property to amount to appropriation. This changed in Morris [1984], the defendant switched labels of shop articles on the supermarket shelf, with the intention of buying the more expensive article for the price of the less expensive article. It was held that the right to label the goods is a right of the owner, and the assumption of this right by the label switching was an appropriation, despite the fact that other rights had not been assumed. The defendant was then arrested before paying the reduced price for goods, as it isn’t necessary to prove that the victim suffered loss before it can be said that they appropriated property.
Should a defendant assume all or a single right of the owner to amount to appropriation?
Only A single right, not all since 1983.
Is it necessary to prove that the victim suffered any loss before it can be said that they appropriated property?
No, it is not necessary.
Why is it easier to prove theft when someone leaves a shop without paying rather than when they pick up the item and move towards the door?
Technically, the AR is there already as the defendant has appropriated the property, but it is hard to prove the MR until they have left the shop.
Can there be an appropriation where the owner consents to the assumption of their rights?
Yes, see Gomez [1993], where the manager was persuaded to sell items to an accomplice for fake cheques. However, this was done by deception, which is not true consent.
Can an appropriation be established if the property in question passess to the defendant in the form of a valid gift?
Yes, appropriation can be established even if the property is given as a gift.
Which case confirmed that appropriation can be established even if property is given as a gift?
Hinks [2000] - defendant persuaded a man of limited intelligence to give her over £60,000.
What was the criticism about allowing appropriation to be established even if there was gift-giving, around civil and criminal law?
In Mazo [1997], the courts held that as the transaction was valid under civil law, it couldn’t have been appropriated under criminal law. However, Hinks [2000] overruled Mazo and in answer to the criticism that the decision would place the civil law and criminal law at odds with each other, Lord Steyn stated that ‘it would be wrong to assume on a priori grounds that the criminal law rather than the civil law is defective’.
What does it mean to say that appropriation is a ‘neutral concept’?
It does not involve any wrongdoing at all. Appropriation is part of the AR of theft and although the appropriation must be ‘dishonest’, that falls within the MR of the offence.
Is appropriation a finite act?
Usually it will be a finite act, but it can be a continuing act provided that the thief is still ‘on the job’. E.g. stealing something is continuing but at the point of where MR forms, the theft will be complete and further dealings might amount to handling stolen goods.
What is the difference between robbery and burglary?
Robbery is theft alongside the use or threat of violence.
Burglary is theft alongside trespassing into a building.
When does keeping stolen property that wasn’t originally stolen, become theft?
It becomes theft when the person has originally gained possession of the property innocently and subsequently realises that they shouldn’t have the property but decides to keep it anyway. That is when the MR of the offence rises. E.g. borrowing a library book and then keeping it when it is overdue.
How does the latter part of s3(1) TA 1968 deal with property that wasn’t originally stolen but then became theft later?
When the defendant realises they shouldn’t have the property but keeps it anyway, the MR is formed. s3(1) allows the court to find a later assumption of the property: the act of keeping or dealing with it as owner.
What is the exception in s3(2) TA 1968 to theft?
Where the defendant buys property innocently and then discovers a defect in their title (because the property had been stolen), if they then keep it or deal with it as owner, they will not be guilty of theft. However, they could be held liable for handling stolen goods or fraud.
When would s3(2) TA 1968 not apply?
s3(2) TA 1968 does not cover a defendant who acquires property in good faith but not for value, for example, where they are given a stolen car as a gift. If the car is not returned, the defendant is guilty of theft.
Is there appropriation here? Maggie went into a sweet shop. Maggie picked up a ‘pick and mix’ bag and filled it with sweets. Maggie intended to slip out of the store unnoticed without paying. Maggie then lost confidence and left the sweets in the bag on the sweet tray.
Yes, because Maggie has assumed a right of an owner (move it or possess it) and no loss of the owner is required. However, the AR is proven but it would be very difficult to prove the MR, so this claim would probably fail.
Is there appropriation here? Geraldine fell in her kitchen and broke her leg. Geraldine’s neighbour Gurur kindly cut her lawn for her the whole summer. Geraldine gave Gurur £50. Geraldine’s son alleged that Gurur stole the money.
Yes, because Gurur has received it as a gift and even a gift can be appropriated. However, it is unlikely that the MR can be established.
Where in the TA 1968 can the definition of ‘property’ be found?
s4(1) TA 1968.
How does s4(1) TA 1968 define ‘property’?
Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. The definition is very wide due to ‘includes’ and ‘all other property’.
What counts as ‘money’ and what does not?
Coins and banknotes = money
Cheques = not money, but a ‘thing in action’.