Offences against property Flashcards
Where is “ to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive “ defined?
S1 Theft Act 1968
What is the Actus Reus and Mens Rea of Theft?
1) s3 Appropriation
2) s4 Property
3) s5 Belonging to another
4) s2 Dishonesty
5) s6 Intention to permanently deprive
Describe s3 Appropriation
Assuming rights of ownership, eg taking, keeping damaging, destroying and selling property Pitham & Hehl 1976
a) Later assumption of a right - If D picks up by. mistake thinking it was own and decides to keep it or lent a book and refusing to return it eg Jill buys CD from shop, assistant gave her 2 by mistake and she realises but does not return the second. Can be theft.
b) Protection of innocent purchasers - Where D buys in good faith for market value, not guilty upon realising they were stolen.
The thief does not need to assume all rights of ownership eg R v Morris 1983
Appropriation can be with consent of the owner eg Lawrence 1972 where Theft and appropriation existed despite consent or Gomez 1993 (upholding Lawrence) where consent is obtained by fraud there can be appropriation
What is the cases where:
1) D stayed in V’s flat, sold his belongings, assumed rights of owner to offer furniture for sale and therefore appropriated it no matter if the furniture was ACTUALLY removed from the property or not.
2) Switched label of items. Appropriated the right of the owner.
3) International student offered their wallet to a Cab driver after being told taxi fare would be one pound and being told it was higher by the cab driver. Appropriation despite consent.
4) D (assistant manager) received consent to supply £17,200 worth of goods to customer in return for 2 building society cheques, even though D knew they were worthless and was in collusion with customer. HL held.
1) Pitham & Hehl 1976
2) R v Morris 1983
3) Lawrence 1972
4) Gomez 1993
Why is there a conflict of civil and criminal law in appropriation?
Civil law ownership of goods passes unless there is deception or fraud, but instead in criminal law it is different, eg a gift in civil law may be valid as deception is yet to be done but dishonesty could make it criminal eg Hinks 2000
Appropriation is usually a ___ __ occurrence and not a _________ process
one off occurrence and not a continuing process eg Atakpu & Abrahams 1994
What are the cases where:
1)D encouraged a man of limited intelligence to withdraw money and deposit it into her account. Said they were gifts. Under civil law ownership of goods legally passed, so now her property, but guilty of theft due to dishonesty.
2)DD hired German cars intending to take to Dover. Appropriation in Germany or England? was in Germany, does not continue in Germany, so the case was handled in Germany.
1) Hinks 2000
2) Atakpu & Abrahams 1994
Describe s4 Property
Property which can be stolen under s1 is:
Money
Real property (Land & Buildings)
Personal Property (Moveable/tangible items)
Things in action (Intangible eg bank accounts)
Intangible property (Export quota/patents)
Property under TA 1968 does not include:
1) Confidential Information (Oxford v Moss 1979)
2) Land s4(2) unless:
a) Defendant is in position of trust and appropriates the land eg moving a boundary fence despite just being a trustee
b) Can only be done by someone not in possession of it eg cutting turf and taking it away
c) Tenant under tenancy appropriates any fixture or structure let to be used with land eg removing sink upon leaving after renting a flat.
3) Things growing wild s4(3), only Cultivated plants can be stolen
4) Wild animals s4(4) Cannot be stolen unless tamed.
5) Human body parts unless special eg Kelly & Lyndsay 1998
Describe the case where:
1) Exam paper taken w/ intention of being returned after using to cheat. Held - not amount to intangible property for purposes of Theft Act 1968
2) Artist paid to draw body parts, kept going missing and found at artists home, special property due to being preserved so theft.
1) Oxford v Moss 1979
2) Kelly & Lyndsay 1998
Describe s5 Belonging to another
s5 (1) The property appropriated must belong to another
Possession - Property can be stolen by anyone in possession, not just owner, eg stealing a book that has been borrowed is still stealing from the borrower, not the library, eg Woodman 1974.
Proprietary interest - Webster 2006
Possession or control of property does not have to be lawful, you can steal from a thief.
Owners can be liable for stealing their own goods from someone in lawful possession eg Turner 1971
Abandoned property cannot be stolen, but truly abandoned property is rare eg Williams v Phillips 1957
Property may not belong to another but is treated as such eg
1) S5(3) Receiving property for a particular purpose eg Hall 1972
Davidge v Bunnett 1984
2) s5(4) Receiving property by another’s mistake - property still belongs to the owner, so must return to the owner.
Gilks 1972
What is the case where…
1) Scrap metal sold but not collected when stolen. Stolen from someone in possession.
2) P awarded medal. Sent two by mistake.- D sold second medal, but still owned by MOD so theft.
3) D took car to get repaired, told proprietor he’d be back following day, instead took car 7 hrs later without paying.
4) Householder put stuff out for collecting, workers helped themselves before it was collected, still stolen despite being “ abandoned “
5) D received deposits for holiday but not booked when firm went into liquidation, D not under any obligation for using money to book holidays so no theft.
6) D shared flat with 7 others and cheques were given out for gas bills to D. D spent on christmas - Held, still belonged to other tenants, so liable.
7) D bet on horse, other horse won but manager mistakenly gave money to D, D did not tell manager so liable.
1) Woodman 1974
2) Webster 2006
3) Turner 1971
4) Williams v Phillips 1957
5) Hall 1972
6) Davidge v Bunnett 1984
7) Gilks 1972
Describe s2 Dishonesty
AO3 no full def of dishonesty in statute so must rely on case law. Why is this a issue? Offends SOP.
One statute does give us three situations that are not dishonest.
S2(1)a - Honest belief in legal right
Robinson 1977 - D owed 7 quid by V’s wife, in struggle V dropped five and D kept it, not liable.
s2(1)b - Honest belief in other’s consent or consent if they knew the circumstances
s2(1)c - Honest belief owner cant be found - where D finds it and honestly believes owner cannot be traced by taking reasonable steps. Need not be reasonable.
Belief need not be reasonable but must be genuine and honest
Adrian Small 1987
Statute also gives us two examples of what may be dishonest:
a) Gain - D may be dishonest even where appropriation not made with view to gain or for D’s own benefit S1(2) (Robin hood)
b) Willing to pay - can still be dishonest appropriation if D willing to pay ie taking good and leaving money in place
What is the case where D attempted to steal car thinking it was abandoned and was not liable due to genuinely believing it was abandoned
Adrian Small 1987
What is the common law def of dishonesty?
Ivey 2017 - Replaced Ghosh. Would a reasonable and honest person think D’s actions dishonest?
Ghosh required RP thinking it dishonest and that D knew that (subjective test). Behaviour became honest simply bc D had lower standards and did not realise RP would think it dishonest.
Barton v Booth 2020
What was the case where:
1) D won £7.7 mil but refused winnings due to dishonest and cheated. D argued he was honestly using legitimate advantage play. UKSC stated actions would be described as dishonest by the reasonable and honest person and felt D duped croupier into fixing the shoe. No requirement that D must appreciate what he has done is dishonest.
2) Ivey test used after owner and manager of nursing home defrauded wealthy residents
1) Ivey 2017
2) Barton and Booth 2020
Describe s6 Intention to permanently deprive
Provides distinction between borrowing aand theft. Most cases are obvious.
Intention may be obvious but under s6 intention is also shown where:
1) D intended to dispose of or treat as own Lavender 1994
D may sell goods taken to a third party: Marshall, Coombes & Eren 1998
2) Intention to remove value from property eg Lloyd 1985.
What proportion fo value has to be used up??
3) Where person takes unacceptable risk with property, treating it as their own without being sure they can get it back
4) Intention to replace with identical property eg Velumyl 1989
5) Disposal of property may be ITPD when taken or when disposed of
6) Conditional intent to take something, examining it to see if its work stealing not enough for theft eg Easom 1971 but is enough for attempted theft eg A-G reference 1979
What are the cases where:
1) By moving council doors between flat, treated them as own to dispose of therefore permanently depriving
2) Obtained underground tickets from public members finished with them, resold to travellers, tickets stated they remained property of london underground - D claimed they did not intend to permanently deprive as they always ended up back with LU when used, Held - guilty as D’s treated tickets as own to dispose of.
3)Projectionist gave D film to make illegal copy. Returned it by next screening. Not liable for theft.
4) D took £1050 from office intending to replace it when friend repaid. Upheld due to intention to perm deprived even if intended to replace.
5) D took handbag, rummaged and returned without stealing. No evidence that D intended to perm deprive, so conviction quashed.
6) If D had conditional intent, could be charged with intent to steal.
1) Lavender 1994
2) Marshall, Coombes & Eren 1998
3) Lloyd 1985
4) Velumyl 1989
5) Easom 1971
7) A-G Reference 1979
What section of the Theft Act 1968 contains the offence of robbery?
8
