EXAM NOTES: Theft Flashcards
What is the general structure for a theft question?
(1) Appropriation
a. Later appropriation
(2) Property
(3) BTA
a. For a purpose
b. By mistake
(4) Dishonesty/Ghosh
a. Willingness to pay/leaving without paying
(5) IPD
a. Borrowing
(6) Making off without payment
What is the basic law on theft?
Theft Act 1968 s1(1) a person is guilty of theft if he
- dishonestly
- appropriates
- property
- belonging to another
- with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
What is the AR for theft?
- Appropriation
- Property
- Belonging to another
what is the MR for theft?
- Dishonesty
- Intention to permanently deprive
what is an appropriation?
1) S3 TA 1968 any assumption of a right of an owner
2) R v Morris assumption of any right is sufficient
3) DPP v Gomez – consent is irrelevant; almost anything is an appropriation. Very wide gate
4) R v Hinks – receiving a gift is an appropriation
What is the law for later appropriations?
- s3(1)
- where D comes by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it
- and then decides to keep it or deal with it as an owner
- amounts to theft because the initial appropriation constitutes a continuing act – R v Hale
who is protected from the law on later appropriations?
s3(2) innocent purchaser for value protected
what is property?
S4 TA 1968 defines property and contains exceptions
Oxford v Moss – confidential information cannot be intangible property
what is the general law on belonging to another?
S5(1) TA 1968 – anyone having ‘possession or control’ of property or any proprietary right or interest - Includes joint owners
what is the law on possession or control?
- R v Turner – garage had possession and control of the car so D stole his own property
- R v Woodman – property can belong to those who have possession or control of the land it is found on
- Parker v British Airways – but only if they demonstrate an intention to exercise that possession or control over things found on the land
what is the law on wild property?
- If wild cannot be stolen unless for commercial purpose
- If on someone’s private land, can be stolen under s4(2)(b) – severing something forming part of the land
What is the law on abandonment?
- Williams v Phillips courts unlikely to accept abandoned property easily – even rubbish left for the bin men was left for a purpose
What is the law on lost property?
- Original owner still owns lost property e.g. Hibbert v McKiernan – trespassers stealing lost golf balls
what is the general law on property given for a purpose?
- s5(3)
- the agent who receives the property still receives it as belonging to another
- so long as there is a legal obligation to use it in a certain way
how does the law on property given for a purpose work?
- R v Breaks v Huggan – s5(3) does not have automatic application; the judge must decide.
- can apply in social situations Davidge v Bunnet (paying household bills)
- depends on all the facts e.g. R v Hall (travel agent) no duty on the facts
what situations in particular are likely to lead to a legal duty to use the property in a certain way?
- express assurances that the money will be used for a particular purpose R v Klineberg Marsden
- money held in a special and separate account R v Wain
What is the general law on property gained by mistake?
• TA 1968 s5(4)
- if X gets property by mistake and is under an obligation to return it,
- the property should be regarded as belonging to the person entitle to receive the returned property
how does s5(4) TA 1968 work?
- Must be a legal duty to return; Re Gilks illegal betting contract so no duty
- AG’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) – s5(4) operates when D becomes aware of the mistake - overpaid policewoman
what is the alternative to using s5(4) TA 1968 for property gained by mistake?
use s5(1)
- the transferor has an equitable interest in the property
- because it was transferred by mistake
- R v Shadrockh-Cigari
What are the exceptions to the general law relating to dishonesty?
- s2(1)
- D cannot be dishonest
- if he honestly believes (not reasonably R v Robinson)
• A) that he has in law the right to deprive.
• B) that the other person would consent.
• C) that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
o ‘reasonable steps’ is judged against what D thinks will be reasonable – totally subjective
What is the test for dishonesty?
R v Ghosh
- Objective/subjective test
- 1) by the ordinary (objective) standards of reasonable and honest people was D’s behaviour dishonest?
- 2) if so, must D himself have realised that what he was doing was dishonest?
how does dishonesty relate to a willingness to pay?
- S2(2) D can still be dishonest even if he is willing to pay for the appropriated property
how does dishonesty relate to leaving without paying?
- Edwards v Ddin – if you fill up your car intending not to pay then this is likely to be dishonest under the Ghosh test and can be prosecuted as theft
- If you only develop the dishonest intent after you fill up then there can be no coincidence of MR and AR as the property is owned by you
- covered by s3 Theft Act 1978 – making off without payment - instead
what is the starting point for determining if someone had the intention to permanently deprive?
- common sense and the ordinary meaning of the words R v Lloyd
what is the general law for ITPD?
- If D does not intend V to permanently lose the property,
- it is enough if it is D’s intention was:
- “to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights” s6(1) TA 1968
explain ‘treat as your own’?
o R v Scott – intention to return stolen curtains did not negate the fact that he treated the property as his own
explain ‘to dispose of regardless of others’ rights’
o R v Cahill– to dispose of meant to “deal with definitely.” Needs to be returned in a dramatically altered state with some of its ‘goodness’ gone
o DPP v J – headphones returned snapped and therefore unusable so rights were disposed of.
o R v Fernades - risking loss is disposing of property regardless of others rights
how does borrowing relate to ITPD?
s6(1) TA 1968 borrowing can be equivalent to outright taking or disposal
o R v Lloyd – was the intention to return it minus its goodness and practical value?
