Criminal - Theft Flashcards
Theft - Actus Reus
Appropriation of property belonging to another.
Theft - Appropriation
Appropriation is the assumption of rights of an owner- including where a person acquires property without stealing it but then later assumes the rights of an owner
- Consent of the owner is irrelevant as to appropriation (DPP v Gomez) - Can be a valid gift of property (R v Hinks)
Restrictions:
- Not appropriation if you purchase the goods (s.3(2) TA 1968, R v Adams)
- Appropriation must involve some contact with property (not sufficient for D to merely cause V to use property in a manner beneficial to D) (R v Briggs)
- Cannot steal property more than once (although appropriation can be continuous) (R v Atakpu).
R v Briggs
Appropriation requires contact between D and property - not enough to say D made V use property in a manner that benefitted D
R v Hinks
Appropriation can be a valid gift of property.
R v Adams
Not appropriation if you purchase goods
DPP v Gomez
Consent of the owner is irrelevant as to appropriation.
Theft - of property
Property includes:
- money, real property, personal property; list is virtually endless (R v Smith, Plummer and Haines)
- intangible property capable of being legally enforced e.g. IP, bank accounts, overdrafts (Chan Man-Sin v R)
Restrictions: Property is not-
- Confidential information (Oxford v Moss)
- Electricity (Low v Blease)
Chan Man-Sin v R
Intangible property capable of being legally enforced e.g. IP, bank accounts, overdrafts
Oxford v Moss
Confidential information is not property
Low v Blease
Electricity is not property
Theft - Belonging to another
- Having possission of / control of / proprietary interest in the property
- The property may in fact be your own (R v Turner (No. 2))
- Includes where you have received property from another and are legally obliged to deal with it in a particular way (s.5(1) TA 1968) (DPP v Huskinson).
- s5(4) TA1968 Includes where you have the obligation to return it (Moynes v Cooper)
Restrictions: Property will not belong to another-
- Property must belong to another AT THE TIME of the dishonest appropriation (Edwards v Ddin)
- Abandoned property does not ‘belong to another’ but courts are reluctant to declare this (Ormerod, Williams v Phillips)
R v Turner (No. 2)
Car - garage repairs - tried to leave without paying - attempted to argue could not be guilty of appropriating his own property; held on appeal that garage had lawful control of the car.
A legal owner can be guilty of stealing his own property (where it also belongs to another)
Williams v Phillips
Property left for a specific purpose is not abandoned, i.e. rubbish left for collection.
RCRickets v Basildon Magistrates’ Courts
Property left for a specific purpose is not abandoned e.g. clothing left outside a charity shop
Theft - Mens Rea
1) Dishonesty
2) Intention to permanently deprive
R v GHOSH
Dishonesty
D acted dishonestly if:
i) D’s behaviour was dishonest by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people (obj.) and;
ii) D realised that his actions were dishonest according to those standards. (subj.)
MR - intention to permanently deprive
Includes:
a) where V has only limited interest (e.g. borrowing)
b) D intends to replace item
c) D does not intend to permantly deprive, may still be deemed to if he treats items as his own to dispose of
d) When V parts with item under condition to return which D may not be able to.
R v Velumyl
D intends to replace item, even if identical, still forms MR
R v Cahill
Deemed intent to permanently deprive:
Drunk D took newspapers on street - not liable
R v Fernandes
Deemed intent to permanently deprive:
Risky money lending with clients’ money - liable since he dealt with property in such a manner that he knew the risk of taking loss.
N.B. whether actual risk is irrelevant- instead whether D believed
R v Lloyd
Deemed intent to permanently deprive - treating property as own
Extends to borrowing and lending property if
period equivalent to outright taking and goodness and virtue is gone - only in exceptional circumstances
Hibbert v McKiernan
Just because an owner has stopped looking for his property, doesn’t mean he’s abandonned it.
R v Woodman
It is possible to have possession and control of property without knowing it
Parker v BAB
Where public has access to land / vehicle, need to notify intention of controlling property found there.
R v Robinson
Dishonesty = subjective test under statute i.e. belief is enough
