Criminal Law - Theft

Question 1

AG’s Ref (No. 1 of 1983)

Answer 1

Facts: A policewoman received too much money in her salary and decided to keep it.

Principle: Where someone receives money by mistake and realises, there is a legal obligation to return it.

Question 2

Chodorek v Poland

Answer 2

Facts: Money was withdrawn from a bank account where the person making the withdrawal knew that he did not have funds in the account or an overdraft facility.

Principle: All elements for the offence of theft! were present.

Question 3

Davidge v Bunnett

Answer 3

Facts: The defendant received money from her housemates. The money was to pay for the heating bill, but she used it to purchase Christmas presents instead.

Principle: It is possible to have a legal obligation in a domestic situation where there is an unambiguous obligation to use the money for a certain purpose.

Question 4

DPP v Vicky Patterson

Answer 4

Facts: A cleaner was paid in cash but did not account to it to her employer and gave evasive answers to her employer’s questions. She was convicted of theft.

Principle: Lord Leveson held: “Given the terms of the unanimous observations of the Supreme Court … it is difficult to imagine the Court of Appeal preferring Ghosh to Ivey in the future.”

CONFIRMED Ivey v Genting Casinos

Question 5

Hibbert v Mckiernen

Answer 5

Facts: A man collected lost golf balls on a golf course and sold them on. The golf club had taken steps to prevent this (including erecting fences).

Principle: Irrespective of who owned the particular balls, the golf club had taken sufficient steps to demonstrate an intention to control items found on the land and so (for the purposes of larceny) the club and its members had a special form of property in the balls.

Question 6

Ivey v Genting Casinos

Answer 6

Facts: The claimant was a professional gambler who used a technique called “edge-sorting” to improve his chances of winning. He won £7.7m in a 24-hour period. The casino refused to pay, on the basis that the claimant had cheated. The claimant sued to recover the winnings. The Supreme Court held that the claimant had cheated and was not entitled to payment.

Principle: Established the current test for dishonesty:

1. What was the actual state of the defendant’s knowledge or belief as to the facts?
2. Was the defendant’s behaviour objectively dishonest by the “standards of ordinary decent people”, taking into account the defendant’s state of mind and the facts known to him/her? Note: a civil (not criminal) ruling of the Supreme Court, though it effectively overrules the old Ghosh test in that the lower courts will prefer Ivey. OVERRULED R v Ghosh

Question 7

Low v Blease

Answer 7

Facts: A trespasser made a telephone call. It was argued he was guilty of stealing the electrnicity used during the call

Principle: Electricity is not “property for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968 (“TA”), so cannot be stolen. There is a separate offence of unlawfully abstracting.

Question 8

Oxford v Moss

Answer 8

Facts: A university student found and read a copy of an upcoming exam paper. It was argued that he had stolen the exam paper.

Principle: Confidential information is not “property” for the purposes of the TA, so cannot be stolen.

Question 9

Parker v British Airways Board

Answer 9

Facts: An airline passenger found a valuable bracelet in an airport lounge.

Principle: British Airways did not exhibit an intention to control the area, so did not have a claim to ownership of the bracelet.

Question 10

R v Adams

Answer 10

Facts: The defendant bought spare motorbike parts, not knowing that they were stolen.

Principle: Section 3(2) TA ensures that innocent purchasers are not liable for theft.

Question 11

Rv Cahill

Answer 11

Cahill, walking home drunk with a friend, picked up a bundle of newspapers thinking it was a bag of rubbish he would use for a prank.

Principle: Defined “treat the thing as his own” under s. 6(1) TA as “to deal with definitely, to get rid of, finish, make over by way of sale or bargain”.

Question 12

R v Fernandes

Answer 12

Facts: The defendant embezzled money from his client and invested it. He intended to return the money.

Principle: Dealing with property in a way that! risked its loss was to “treat the thing as if his own”

COMPARE with Mitchell

Question 13

R v Ghosh

Answer 13

Facts: A consultant surgeon claimed money for surgeries he had not performed.

Principle: Established the old Ghosh test for dishonesty in theft.

OVERRULED by Ivey v Genting Casinos

Question 14

R v Gomez

Answer 14

Facts: Gomez switched goods from the shop he worked in using stolen cheques with the authorisation of the manager.

Principle: Appropriation is a neutral act, so it is possible to appropriate even with the consent of the owner.

Question 15

R v Hall

Answer 15

Facts: Money was given to a travel agent to pay for flights. The travel agent went bankrupt before the flights had been booked. It was argued that the money had been given solely for the purpose of purchasing flights, so could be deemed to belong to another under s. 5(3) TA.

Principle: The money for the flights was not explicitly given for a purpose, so Hall was not guilty of theft.

Question 16

R v Hinks

Answer 16

Facts: Hinks cared for a man of limited intelligence who gave her tens of thousands of pounds over the course of a year.

Principle: Appropriation is a neutral act, so it is possible to appropriate even where the property is given as a gift.

Question 17

R v Klineberg and Marsden

Answer 17

Facts: Money was given to the defendant for investing in a timeshare. It was a fraudulent investment.

Principle: The money was deemed to have been given only for that purpose. Where express assurances are given about the use of the money, it is likely to be deemed to be held for a purpose.

Question 18

R v Lloyd

Answer 18

Facts: The defendant took films from the cinema where he worked for personal viewings before returning them completely intact.

Principle: Borrowing property can be an intention to permanently deprive where it is returned with all its value and usefulness gone.

Question 19

R v Mitchell

Answer 19

Facts: The defendant took a car, but left it a short distance down the road with its doors open and hazard lights on.

Principle: The easier the property is to recover, the less likely the Fernandes interpretation will apply.

Question 20

R v Morris

Answer 20

Facts: Morris switched price labels on supermarket goods.

Principle: Appropriation can be done with the assumption of any one right.

Question 21

R v Pitham and Hehl

Answer 21

Facts: The defendant sold items that did not belong to him to another person.

Principle: Offering for sale is an example of an assumption of one right.

Question 22

R v Raphael

Answer 22

Facts: The defendant took cars from his victims, and demanded money to return them. It was argued that he did not have an intention to permanently deprive as they would get their cars back.

Principle: “Treating the thing as his own to dispose of” covers “ransom” situations, where a thing is taken in order to demand money for its return. COMPARE with Fernandes and Mitchell

Question 23

R v Robinson

Answer 23

Facts: The defendant was owed money and tried to claim it back. He got into a fight with the debtor’s husband, who dropped some money. The defendant picked it up. He was charged with robbery, but successfully argued that he believed he was entitled to it.

Principle: It is only necessary to hold a subjectively honest belief in one of the exceptions under s. 2(1) TA.

Question 24

R v Turner

Answer 24

Facts: Turner’s car was being repaired. He broke into the car at the side of the road and drove it away without paying. He had stolen the car as the garage had control of it and the right to be paid for the work on it, so it “belonged to another”.

Principle: “Belonging to another” has a wide definition that includes possession, control, and any proprietary right. You can, as happened here, steal your own property

Question 25

R v Velumyl

Answer 25

Facts: The defendant took money from a safe at work, intending to return it the next day.

Principle: Replacing money with different money is still an intention to permanently deprive.

Question 26

R v Wain

Answer 26

Facts: The defendant received money for a charity. He then used the money for his own purpose, thus appropriating the money.

Principle: The defendant was under an obligation to use the money for the particular purpose of paying the charity.

Question 27

R v Woodman

Answer 27

Facts: The defendant stole scrap metal from an abandoned factory. He argued that there was no owner of the property so it could not be stolen. The factory owners had erected a fence, even though they weren’t aware of the metal.

Principle: Where a party has exhibited an intention to control an area, property found in that area will be deemed to belong to them.

COMPARE with Parker v BAB

Question 28

Williams v Phillips

Answer 28

Facts: Bin-men were caught stealing goods from bins. The property was deemed to belong to the person who had left it out for the council, until the council took it away, when it became their property.

Principle: The courts are reluctant to find that property has been abandoned (although it is not impossible). Here, the original owner retained ownership until the property was taken away, after which it belonged to the council.