Criminal Law - Theft Flashcards
AG’s Ref (No. 1 of 1983)
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.
Chodorek v Poland
Facts: Money was withdrawn from a bank account where the person making the withdrawal knew that he did not have funds in the account or an overdraft facility.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.
Davidge v Bunnett
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.
DPP v Vicky Patterson
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
Hibbert v Mckiernen
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.
Ivey v Genting Casinos
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:
- What was the actual state of the defendant’s knowledge or belief as to the facts?
- 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
Low v Blease
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.
Oxford v Moss
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.
Parker v British Airways Board
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.
R v Adams
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.
Rv Cahill
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”.
R v Fernandes
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
R v Ghosh
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
R v Gomez
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.
R v Hall
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.
R v Hinks
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.
R v Klineberg and Marsden
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.
R v Lloyd
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.
R v Mitchell
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.
R v Morris
Facts: Morris switched price labels on supermarket goods.
Principle: Appropriation can be done with the assumption of any one right.
R v Pitham and Hehl
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.
R v Raphael
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
R v Robinson
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.
R v Turner
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
