Paper 1: theft Flashcards
What is the definition of theft?
“A person is guilty of theft is he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”
What does theft come under?
S1(1) of the Theft Act 1968
What does section 7 of the Theft Act 1968 state?
A person is guilty of theft shall on conviction indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years
What is section does appropriation come under?
s3
What is appropriation?
“Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation without stealing it, or any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as the owner “
Morris (1983)
It is enough to prove ‘the assumption.. of any of the rights of the owner of the goods’
Gomez (1993)
There can still be an appropriation, even with the owners consent
Hinks (1998)
At appeal, it was argued there was no appropriation under the civil law the property was received as a valid gift Hl dismissed the appeal stating the issue of consent is related to dishonesty, not whether there is an appropriation
Property definition
“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property
What section does property come under?
s4
What are the types of property
- Money
- Real property
- Personal property
- Things in action
- Other intangible property
s4(3)
Mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foilage from a plant growing wild on any land do not amount to property
s4(4)
Wild creatures, tamed or untamed do not amount to property
Kelly and Lindsay (1998)
Held: normally corpses will not constitute property. The body parts were property as they had acquired ‘different attributed by virtue of the application of skill, such as dissection or preservation techniques, for exhibition or teaching purposes
What section does belonging to another come under?
s5
What is the definition of belonging to another?
“Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest”
Webster (2006) EWCA Crim 2894
Facts: sergeant charged with stealing a medal belonging to the secretary of the state and selling it on the internet
Held: Court held that the Secretary of the State had ‘clearly’ retained a proprietary interest pin the medal for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968
Turner (no.2) (1971)
Facts: Turner left the car at the garage to be fixed and agreed to pay once it was. He used his spare key to take his car during he night, avoiding paying repairs
Held: Although Turner maintained ownership, the garage has lawful possession until the bill was aid, so he was guilty of stealing his own car
Abandonment definition
Where the owner relinquishes their rights over the property
s5(3)
“Where a person received property from or an account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or it proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded as belonging to another”
Davidge v Bunnett (1984)
Held: She was under obligation to use the proceeds of the cheques for the payment of the gas bill. The cheques were regarded as property belonging to another under s.5(£) convicted of theft
Hall (1972)
Held: D could not be guilty of theft because V had not made any special arrangement with D putting him ‘under an obligation to retain and deal with.. in a particular way’ within s5(3)
s.5(4) Theft Act 1968
Where property is received by mistake. “Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under obligation to make restoration of the property or its proceeds shall be regarded”
AG’s ref no.1 (1983)
The CA held s.5(4) clearly provides for this type of situation, D was under an obligation to make restoration if there was a dishonest intent not to make restoration all the elements of theft will be satisfied
What is the definition of dishonesty?
There is no definition of this element of the Theft Act 1968. Feely states we should take it’s ordinary meaning, no special meaning
s.2(1) of the Theft Act 1968
A persons appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as disonest
s.2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968
If he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it
s.2(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968
If he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent
s.2(1)(c) of the Theft Act 1968
If he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
R v Robinson
There was no theft under s.2(1)(a) since the defendant had an honest belief that he was entitles to the money
The Ghosh test
1) Would the defendants behaviour be regarded as dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people
2) Was the defendant aware that his conduct would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people
Two parts of intention to permanently deprive
1) Intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of, regardless of the other’s rights
2) A borrowing or lending can amount to intention to permanently deprive, if it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright disposal
Lavender (1994)
D’s argument failed on the basis that he intended to treat the doors as his own regardless of the council’s rights. The Divisional court held that the dictionary meaning of ‘dispose of’ was too narrow and a disposal could include ‘dealing with’ property
Raphael and another (2008)
It was held that the wording of s.6(1) included the situation when D makes an offer to return to V his own property but subject to a condition which is inconsistent with V’s rights to possession of his own property. There was a theft and therefore the D was guilty of robbery
Velumyl (1989)
CA upheld his conviction, he has no intention of returning the banknotes that he had taken
Lloyd (1985)
There was no theft in this case, keeping it until “the goodness, the virtue, the practical value… has gone out of the article”
Easom (1971)
D was originally convicted of theft but the CA quashed its conviction. D had a conditional intention to deprive
