Law-Theft

Question 1

What act talks about theft?

Answer 1

S1 of the Theft Act 1968

Question 2

What does s1 of the Theft Act 1968 state?

Answer 2

‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’

Question 3

What are the actus reus sections of the act?

Answer 3

S3 appropriates, S4 property, S5 belonging to another

Question 4

What are the mens rea sections of the act?

Answer 4

S2 dishonestly, S6 with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

Question 5

Which part of the act talks about appropriation, and what does it state?

Answer 5

S3(1) states that any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner

Question 6

What are the rights of the owner?

Answer 6

Selling, destroying, possessing, consuming, using, lending or hiring something

Question 7

What is a case example of assuming a right of the owner?

Answer 7

Pitham and Hehl where they assumed the right to sell. There was an appropriation, even though the property was never physically removed

Question 8

What case discusses how many rights of the owner must be assumed in order to be found guilty of theft?

Answer 8

Morris, who switched labels on food items in a supermarket in order to make them cheaper. It was found that only assuming one of the rights of the owner is sufficient

Question 9

What happened in the case of Corcoran v Anderton?

Answer 9

Court of appeal expressed the view that the forcible tugging of a handbag, even though the owner of the bag did not let go of it, could amount to an assumption of the rights of the owner-therefore it was an appropriation of the property

Question 10

What are two cases that discuss consent to appropriation?

Answer 10

Lawrence, and Gomez

Question 11

What happened in the case of Lawrence?

Answer 11

Victim was in a taxi and the journey should have cost 50p but defendant said it would be expensive. Victim gave £1 but driver said it wasn’t enough. Victim opened wallet for the defendant who took £6 then argued that it wasn’t appropriation as it was consented to. Court of appeal and the House of Lords rejected this argument and held that there was appropriation

Question 12

What happened in the case of Gomez?

Answer 12

Defendant was assistant manager of a shop and persuaded manager to sell goods worth £17000 to an accomplice, and to accept payment by two cheques, he said they were as good as cash but they had actually been stolen, so had no value. The defendant was charged and convicted

Question 13

What happened as a result of Gomez?

Answer 13

Appealed to House of Lords as a point of law of general public importance, when theft is alleged and that which is alleged to be stolen asses to the defendant with the consent of the owner, but that has been obtained by a false representation, has: an appropriation within which the meaning of S1(1) of the Theft Act taken place, (House of Lords said yes but it didn’t need to involve an element of adverse interference with or usurpation of some right of the owner

Question 14

What is a case for consent without deception?

Answer 14

Hinks

Question 15

What happened in the case of Hinks?

Answer 15

Victim had low IQ but mentally capable of understanding ownership and gifts-defendant was given £60000 and a television set from victim. Judge directed jury to consider whether the man was so mentally incapable that the defendant would realise that ordinary/decent people would regard it as honest to accept a gift from him-House of lords dismissed the appeal and the conviction was upheld-appropriation even though it was a valid gift

Question 16

What section of the act discusses a late assumption to a right?

Answer 16

S.3(1)-can be an appropriation where defendant acquires property without stealing it, but then later decides to keep or deal with the property as the owner. The appropriation takes place at the point of ‘keeping’ or ‘dealing’

Question 17

What section of the act defines property, and what is the definition?

Answer 17

S.4 ‘property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’

Question 18

What are the five types of property given in the definition?

Answer 18

Money, personal property, real property, things in action and other intangible property

Question 19

What is the definition of money?

Answer 19

Coins and bank notes of any currency

Question 20

What is the definition of personal property?

Answer 20

All moveable items; books, CDs, jewellery, clothes, cars, but also very large items such as aeroplanes or tanks and very small trivial items such as a sheet of paper

Question 21

What is an example of theft of personal property?

Answer 21

Kelly and Lindsay-Body parts being used for educational purposes etc are considered property

Question 22

What is the definition of real property?

Answer 22

The legal term for land and buildings. Under S.4(1) land can be stolen, but S.4(2) states that this can only be done in three circumstances; a trustee or personal representative takes land in break of his duties as a trustee or personal representative, someone not in possession of the land severs anything forming part of the land from the land, a tenant takes a fixture or structure from the land let to him

Question 23

What is an example of theft of real property?

Answer 23

In 1972 a man stole Cleckheaton railway station by dismantling it brick my brick

Question 24

What is the definition of things in action?

Answer 24

A right which can be enforced against another person by an action in law. The right itself is property under definition in S.4 eg a bank doesn’t physically have the money in everyone’s account, you are just given the right to the payment of the amount in the account. If the defendant causes the bank to debit another person’s account, he has appropriated the thing in action, if it was done dishonestly with intention to permanently deprive the other of it, then it is theft

Question 25

What is an example of theft of things in action?

Answer 25

A cheque, but it is also paper so it is property, copyright, registered trademarks, tickets giving the right to attend a performance or concert

Question 26

What are other intangible things?

Answer 26

Other rights which have no physical presence but can be stolen

Question 27

What are examples of theft of other intangible things?

Answer 27

A-G of Hong Kong v Chan Nai-Keung where an export quota for textiles was intangible. Oxford v Moss where knowledge of the questions on an exam paper was held not to be property

Question 28

What part of the act defines things that cannot be stolen

Answer 28

S.4(3) and S.4(4)

Question 29

What does S.4(3) state?

Answer 29

A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks unless he does it for reward or sale, or other commercial purposes (also cannot be picked from someone else’s garden or orchard etc as the section only refers to small wild flowers, fungus and foliage)

Question 30

What does S.4(4) state?

Answer 30

Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcass of any such creature, unless it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person in in course of reducing in into possession

Question 31

What does S.4(4) mean?

Answer 31

Eg it is not theft if a deer is taken from the grounds of a large estate (though there are poaching laws) but it would be theft if it was taken from a zoo, as it would have ordinarily be kept in captivity

Question 32

Can electricity be stolen?

Answer 32

It is intangible property that cannot be stolen, there is however a separate offence under S11 of the Theft Act 1968 (dishonestly using electricity without due authority, or dishonestly causing it to be wasted or diverted)

Question 33

What section of the act defines belonging to another, and what is the definition?

Answer 33

S.5 states that ‘property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest

Question 34

What happens if someone steals something that is already stolen?

Answer 34

If someone steals something that is already stolen, they would still be guilty of theft because ownership does not have to be lawful

Question 35

What is the case for stealing own property?

Answer 35

Turner (No.2) took his car back from a garage which had been parked on the street using a spare key(without paying for the repairs). The court of appeal said the garage was in possession/control of the car so he was guilty of stealing his own car

Question 36

Can the victim be in control of property he doesn’t know he has?

Answer 36

Woodman 1974-company 1 had left over scrap metal surrounded by a fence and thought it had al been removed by company 2, however some was left behind. A third person then stole the metal from company1. The appeal was dismissed as company 1 showed their control by keeping it on site with attempts to keep people out (the fence)

Question 37

What does section 5(3) of the theft act 1968 talk about?

Answer 37

Property received under an obligation-defendant can be convicted of theft even where he has acquired legal ownership of the property provided he was under an obligation to deal with that property in a particular day

Question 38

What are four case examples of where property was received under an obligation?

Answer 38

Hassall, Hall, Wain and Davidge v Bennet

Question 39

What happened in Hassall?

Answer 39

Treasurer of a Christmas club became the legal owner of the money paid in by the members but wasn’t expected to pay back the exact notes/coins to each member. However he was guilty of theft as he was under an obligation to return the equivalent as club members had proprietary interest

Question 40

What happened in Hall?

Answer 40

Partner in travel agent firm received deposits/payments from clients. He paid it into the firms general bank account but didn’t arrange the holidays and couldn’t repay the money. He wasn’t guilty of theft as no proof that he was under an obligation to use the money in any particular way (paid into general bank account)

Question 41

What happened in Wain?

Answer 41

Defendant paid charity money into own account, spent it and couldn’t give it back to the charity-guilty of theft

Question 42

What happened in Davidge v Bennet?

Answer 42

Defendant was given money by flat mate to pay gas bill but used it to buy Christmas presents instead-Legal obligation-held that there was a contract under contract law-guilty of theft

Question 43

What does s.5(4) relate to?

Answer 43

Property acquired by mistake. This section essentially says that where a person is under an obligation to restore property or its proceeds to the owner, but intentionally fails to do so, then they are liable for theft

Question 44

What is a case for property acquired by mistake?

Answer 44

A-G reference no1 of 1983-overpaid police women kept the extra money-she was guilty of theft as she was obligated to return it

Question 45

What has been said about the obligation to restore property?

Answer 45

It must be a legal obligation, not a moral obligation eg Gilks who was accidentally paid by a betting company-he didn’t have to pay it back but it wasn’t theft as betting isn’t a legal contract

Question 46

What happens with ownerless property?

Answer 46

Can’t be liable for theft for appropriating property that isn’t owned at the time of appropriation

Question 47

What happens with lost or abandoned property?

Answer 47

Lost doesn’t mean abandoned. If owner has no further use or desire for it then it still isn’t abandoned.

Question 48

What is a case for lost/abandoned property?

Answer 48

Small 1987-Defendant took a car that was thought to be abandoned as it was left for two weeks with keys in the ignition-owner couldn’t be found but he should have contacted the DVLA to find the owner (which would have been the reasonable response)

Question 49

What section of the Theft Act 1968 talks about dishonestly?

Answer 49

Section 2, however dishonesty isn’t defined in the Theft Act, but Section 2(1) gives three examples of where a defendant’s behaviour will not be dishonest

Question 50

What are the three examples of where defendant’s have not been dishonest?

Answer 50

(All are based on genuine belief that doesn’t need to be reasonable or correct, but the less reasonable the belief, the less likely it is to be believed that the belief is genuine). Three examples are belief in a legal right to deprive, belief in the owner’s consent and belief tht the owner cannot be discovered

Question 51

What section is belief in a legal right to deprive?

Answer 51

S.2(1)A

Question 52

What is a case for a belief in a legal right to deprive?

Answer 52

Holden-Who took tyres from work as other employees had been allowed to previously, however he was fired and convicted of theft but found to not have been dishonest and so wasn’t guilty

Question 53

What section is belief in the owners consent?

Answer 53

S.2(1)B

Question 54

What section is belief that the owner cannot be discovered?

Answer 54

S.2(1)C

Question 55

What is a case for belief that the owner cannot be discovered?

Answer 55

Small-abandoned care case which is also an example for s.5-belonging to another

Question 56

What happens when a situation does not fall neatly into one of the three examples of not dishonest behaviour?

Answer 56

It doesn’t mean that the defendant was automatically dishonest. Courts look at case law, and following uncertainty, the court of appeal laid down a two part test, which is known as the Ghosh test

Question 57

What happened in the case of Ghosh?

Answer 57

Defendant was a doctor acting as a locum consultant in a hospital. He claimed fees for an operation he had not carried out, and said he was not dishonest as he waa owed the equivalent amount in consultation fees. He was convicted and appealed to the House of Lords, which was an appeal court before the? supreme court

Question 58

What did Lord Lane say about proving dishonesty (Ghosh two part test)?

Answer 58

In determining whether the prosecution had proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether: 1) according to the standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails, if it was dishonest then it continues to the next step. 2)Whether defendant himself realised what he was doing, by those standards was dishonest

Question 59

What is a simplified explanation of the Ghosh test?

Answer 59

Jury must decided whether the defendant was dishonest, according to reasonable and honest people, and did the defendant realise he was being dishonest

Question 60

What does s.2(2) say?

Answer 60

A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property-which means that if someone appropriates property but was willing to pay for it, it is still dishonest and theft, if consent from owner was not gained

Question 61

What section talks about intention to permanently deprive?

Answer 61

Section 6

Question 62

How is intention to permanently deprive, found?

Answer 62

Intention is enough-the defendant doesn’t have to actually permanently deprive the other of it, however if they do permanently deprive other of it, but don’t have intention, it is not sufficient. Evidence of case usually provides the evidence for intent, and destroying property satisfies intention to permanently deprive and also criminal damage

Question 63

What is a case for intention to permanently deprive?

Answer 63

Velumyl-manager took money (£1050) from a safe at the company where he worked. He lent the money to a friend and said he would return the equivalent back when his friend repaid him. He was found guilty of theft as the actual/same notes or coins had been taken and the owner was permanently deprived of them

Question 64

What does section 6(1) say?

Answer 64

A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights

Question 65

What was decided about s.6(1) in DPP v lavender?

Answer 65

That the words ‘to dispose of’ was too wide and could include dealing with property

Question 66

What happened in DPP v Lavender?

Answer 66

Defendant took doors from council flat being repaired to replace broken doors at his girlfriends council flat. They were still in the possession of the council but transferred to another property without permission-question was whether he intended to use them as his own regardless of the councils rights-answer was yes so he was guilty of theft

Question 67

What does section 6(1) also say?

Answer 67

The borrowing or lending (of the thing) may amount to treating the thing as his own, but only if the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal

Question 68

When does section 6(1) about borrowing/lending usually come into play?

Answer 68

When a person returns the thing in such a changed rate that it has diminished in value

Question 69

What is a case for borrowed property diminishing in value?

Answer 69

Lloyd and others who borrowed films for a short time, copied and replaced them undamaged. The court held that for borrowing to amount to theft they have to keep it until ‘the goodness, the virtue, the practical value has gone

Question 70

What does section 6(2) cover?

Answer 70

The situation where defendant parts with another’s property, taking the risk he may not get it back

Question 71

What happened in the case of Easom?

Answer 71

Defendant picked up handbag in cinema, looked through it and returned it without taking anything. Convicted of theft of bag and contents but the court of appeal quashed the conviction and held that although he may have had a conditional intent to deprive-this was not enough

Question 72

What happened in the case of Raphael and another?

Answer 72

Two defendants took victims car by force and demanded payment for its return. The wording of section 6(1) includes defendant making an offer to regency property subject to a condition which is inconsistent with victims rights to possession of own property. Guilty of theft and robbery