chapter 5- theft Flashcards
R v Vinall
-D’s subjected 2 men to verbal and physical abuse
-Took v’s bike and left it 45m away
-CoA held that the taking and abandoning of the bike established appropriation
(Actus reus- appropriation)
R v Morris
-D switched the prices on the labels of 2 items
-He put the lower priced item into his shopping basket but was stopped before checking out
-He had assumed the rights of an owner when changing the labels
(Actus reus- appropriation)
Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan police
-V was an italian student, who offered her purse to a taxi driver to take out the correct fare
-Driver took £6 deepite the fare being 50p
-Although V consented, it was held to be appropriation
-Appropriation often takes place with consent, but it’s not theft as there is an element of dishonesty
-As established in R v Gomez
(Actus reus- consent)
R v Gomez
-D used 2 stolen cheques with no value to pay for goods
-The manage accept the cheques
-Although the manager consented, the act was still dishonest
(actus reus- consent)
R v Hinks
-D was friends with V, who was of ‘limited intelligence’ (disabled), yet v understood gift giving
-V withdrew £60,000 and bought a TV which he gave to D
-Although it was a gift it was held to be appropriation as the jury thought it was dishonest and theft
(actus reus- gifts/ consent without deception)
R v Atakpu and Abrahams
-D’s hired cars in Germany and Belgium using fake passports
-Arrested at Dover and convicted of theft
-CoA quashed their convictions as the moment of appropriation was when they used the fake passports, which was outside the UK
(actus reus- appropriation at 1 point in time)
Oxford v Moss
-D was a student who acquired an exam paper
-Established that D didn’t intend to deprive the uni of the papers, but he was charged with theft of questions
-Found not guilty
(actus reus- intangible property)
R v Kelly and Lindsay
-Kelly made casts of body parts were Lindsay worked
-Convicted of theft and appealed
-CoA held that whilst a dead body isn’t normally property under the Theft Act 1968, the body parts were as they had acquired different attributes by virtue of the application of the skill
(actus reus- property)
R v Webster
-D was an army sergeant and was awarded a medal
-Ministry of Defence sent him a 2nd copy by mistake which he sold on ebay
-Convicted of theft as MoD had an equitable interest in the medal and therefore a proprietary interest
(actus reus- belonging to another)
R v Turner
-D left his car at the garage, but hadn’t paid for repairs
-The car was parked on the street
-D used his spare keys to take it back
-As the car was in the garages control/ possession he stole his own car
(actus reus- possession or control)
R v Basildon Magistrates Court
-D took charity bag from outside the charity shop
-The bags weren’t abandoned as they were left for the charity to collect
-D also stole bags from the bin, which belonged to a charity shop until collected by the bin men
(actus reus- possession or control)
R v Hall
-D took holiday deposits
-D paid these into company account but didn’t order tickets or refund the clients
-D’s conviction was quashed as he wasn’t obliged to deal with the money in a particular way
(actus reus- property under obligation)
Davidge v Bunnett
-D was given money by roommates to pay gas bills
-She instead bought presents with the money
-As she didn’t fulfill her obligation, she was convicted of theft
(actus reus- property under obligation)
R v Gilks
-D placed a bet and bookmakers made a mistake on which horse so overpaid winnings
-D realised, but didn’t return the money
-He was NOT convicted of theft as there was no obligation to return the money
(actus reus- be mistake)
Attorney General’s Reference No.1 of 1983
-D received an overpayment in wages
-She realised but didn’t return it
-She didn’t withdraw it either
-Convicted of theft in action as she was obliged to return the money
(actus reus- be mistake)
R v Smalls
-D took a car he believed was abandoned
-It was unlocked with the keys in
-There was no petrol and the tyres were flat, so he put petrol in it and drove off
-Police stopped him, he panicked and fled
-He said he didn’t think he had stolen anything
-Conviction was quashed as he genuinely believed the owner couldn’t be found
(mens rea- dishonesty)
R v Holden
-D worked at kwik fit and took some tyres as other employees had previously done and the manager said it was okay
-Taking tyres was a sackable offence and so D was fired and convicted of theft
-The conviction was quashed as he genuinely believed he could take the tyres
-And therefore passed the subjective test
(mens rea- dishonesty)
R v Ghosh
-D was a Dr and claimed fees for an operation he didn’t carry out
-He argued that he was owed the same amount as the consultation
-CoA decided the test for dishonesty can have a subjective and objective element:
*was it dishonest according to ordinary standards?
*did D realise it was dishonest according to these standards?
(mens rea- Ghost test)
R v Velumyl
-D took £1050 from office safe as his friend owed him money and needed it to tie him over
-As the exact bank notes were taken it didn’t matter that D was going to replace them with other bank notes
-He was convicted
(mens rea- intention of permanently depriving)
DPP v Lavender
-D took doors from property being repaired and used them to replace door on girlfriends flat
-Although door went from 1 council flat to another and were still in the councils possession, the act of moving them was enough to be theft
(mens rea- intention of permanently depriving)
R v Lloyd
-D was given a film to make an illegal copy
-Although original was returned, the actual footage was taken
-However, as the original was still usable it wasn’t theft under the Theft Act 1968
(mens rea- borrowing or lending)
R v Easom
-D rummaged through V’s bag in a cinema
-Returned it without taking anything
-Conviction was quashed as there was no evidence of intent to permanently deprive
(Mens rea- conditional intent)
The Genting Casino case
- civil case
- Disputed the Ghost test and suggested that the 2nd part of the test was pointless
- Supreme Court judges unanimously held that only whether D genuinely believed an exception applied or whether they were acting dishonestly according to an objective standard had to be established
- Not binding in criminal but can be used a persuasive precedent
R v Zerei
-D and another approached V, and said they were going to take his car
-D pulled out a knife and punched V to take his keys
-Car found abandoned and undamaged less than 1km away
-D was convicted of robbery but the conviction was quashed
-CoA held the trial judge misdirected the jury
(Evaluation- intention to permanently deprive)
