Chapter 9 - Theft and Robbery Flashcards
How is Theft defined in the Theft Act of 1968?
Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines theft as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
What is the maximum penalty for theft?
Theft is an “either way” offense, meaning it can be tried in either a magistrates’ court or a Crown Court. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
What are the Actus Reus and Mens Rea of Theft?
The actus reus of theft is the appropriation of property belonging to another. The mens rea is dishonesty coupled with an intention to permanently deprive.
What is Appropriation?
Appropriation, as defined in s 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968, is any assumption of the rights of an owner. This includes keeping or dealing with property as the owner, even if initially obtained innocently.
Explain Appropriation with an example.
Hafsa owns a book. A potential thief appropriates it by taking possession, selling it as their own, or keeping it for themselves. These are all rights that belong to Hafsa as the owner of the book.
Does the owner’s consent matter in Appropriation?
No, the owner’s consent is irrelevant when determining if an appropriation has taken place. This principle was established in DPP v Gomez where a shop assistant facilitated a transaction with stolen checks, resulting in a theft conviction despite the shop manager’s authorization.
What did R v Morris establish regarding Appropriation?
R v Morris established that appropriation involves assuming any one right of the owner, not necessarily all of them. The case involved switching price labels on goods, demonstrating that interfering with even one right of the owner constitutes appropriation.
Explain Appropriation in the context of a supermarket.
Picking up goods in a supermarket trolley is considered appropriation because it’s assuming some of the owner’s rights, like control over the items. The supermarket’s encouragement for shoppers to handle goods is irrelevant in determining appropriation.
What did the House of Lords conclude in R v Gomez?
The House of Lords in R v Gomez confirmed that an appropriation occurs even with the owner’s consent. This decision has broad implications, meaning virtually any dealing with another’s property is an appropriation, though not automatically theft.
What are some concerns raised by Professor JC Smith about the ruling in R v Gomez?
Professor JC Smith criticized the R v Gomez ruling, arguing that it reduced the actus reus of theft to almost nothing. He contended that even acts usually considered attempts or preparatory acts could now constitute the complete offense of theft.
Can receiving a gift be considered Appropriation?
Yes, R v Hinks established that receiving a gift can be appropriation. In this case, the defendant received substantial gifts from a man of limited intelligence and was convicted of theft, demonstrating that even valid gifts can be considered appropriation if obtained dishonestly.
What is the significance of R v Hinks?
The decision in R v Hinks broadened the concept of appropriation. It held that even receiving a valid gift, according to civil law, can be appropriation for theft if obtained dishonestly. This decision attracted criticism as it seemingly contradicts the civil law concept of ownership.
Are there limitations on Appropriation?
Yes, R v Briggs introduced a limit to appropriation. The case involved a defendant who fraudulently persuaded relatives to transfer money into her account. The court held that her deception didn’t constitute appropriation as she lacked direct physical control over the money.
Can there be later Assumptions of the Rights of an Owner?
Yes, s 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 allows for later assumptions of ownership rights. For example, if someone borrows a library book and later decides to keep it, they have committed appropriation. If the other elements of theft are present, it can be theft.
Provide examples of later Assumptions of the Rights of an Owner.
Here are examples of later assumptions:
* Drinking excess beer given for delivery.
* Keeping a borrowed library book permanently.
* Selling a friend’s watch found by mistake.
Can property be stolen more than once?
No, property can only be stolen once. Once a defendant has appropriated property with the full mens rea of theft, any later assumption of rights does not constitute another theft.
What happened in the case of R v Atakpu ?
In R v Atakpu, defendants were arrested for hiring cars abroad using false documents and planning to sell them in England. The court held that the theft was complete when the cars were hired, and later actions like changing number plates weren’t separate thefts.
Explain the concept of an innocent purchaser for value.
An innocent purchaser for value is not liable for theft if they acquired the property in good faith and paid for it. For example, if someone unknowingly buys a stolen vase, they are not guilty of theft. However, if they later sell it knowing it’s stolen, they could be liable for fraud.
What does “property” include in the context of theft?
Section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines property broadly as including money, all other property (real or personal), things in action, and other intangible property.
Provide examples of different types of “property” in the context of theft.
Here are some examples:
* Money: British or foreign currency.
* Real property: Land, and things attached to it, like a house or garage.
* Personal property: Tangible objects like cars, books, and even illegal drugs in the complainant’s possession.
What are “Things in action” in the context of theft?
Things in action, also called choses in action, are intangible property rights that can be enforced through legal action. Examples include bank accounts and copyrights.
Give an example of “Things in action” in the context of theft.
If Eli copies Jacinta’s book without permission, Jacinta can sue for copyright infringement. The copyright is a thing in action as it is a legal right that can be enforced.
What did the Privy Council find in Chan Man-sin v R?
The Privy Council in Chan Man-sin v R ruled that forging company checks to withdraw money constitutes theft. The defendant appropriated the company’s credit balance, which is a thing in action, by assuming the rights of an owner.
Can overdrawing one’s own bank account be considered theft?
No, in R v Navvabi, the court held that overdrawing one’s own account, even without authorization, isn’t theft because it doesn’t involve assuming rights over another person’s property. While not theft, this action could lead to charges under the Fraud Act 2006 or civil action by the bank.
What is “Other Intangible Property” in the context of theft?
Other intangible property covers intangible assets that aren’t technically things in action, like patents. These are considered personal property under the Patents Act 1977 and can be stolen.
