PO: Theft s3 Flashcards
Definition of appropriation under s3?
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 right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
What rights do owners have?
Almost anything (destroy, sell, rent).
What happens if someone else commit one of these rights?
The owners rights have been “assumed”
(Note: “any” of rights, not all- Morris)
Right to sell: Pitham and Hehl (1977)?
Facts: D attempted to sell furniture outside a house that belonged to someone else.
Held: Offering to sell- ASSUMPTION of owners rights which was held to be an appropriation.
Being outside the house doesnt affect the outcome- acting as the owner= appropriation.
Can be any of the rights: Morris (1983)?
Facts: D removed articles from shelf at supermarket and switched the labels. Discovered at checkout.
Held: H of L held s3 meant interference with “any” rights of owner- therefore switched labels= Appropriation.
Can be theft even if you didnt take anything as long as other elements proved.
In short, doing anything to someones property, beloning to another, appropriates it.
Consent: Why has this caused major problems?
Difficult to decide if a D can appropriate an item given with consent.
H of L stated- must be an adverse or unauthorised appropriation.
Went against ealier decision in Lawrence.
Lawrence?
D- taxi driver- took money from a tourists open wallet- fare was 50p to which tourist gave 1 pound but D took extra six.
D argued there was consent due to the tourist holding open his wallet.
Held: Not necessary to establish that appropriation had taken place with owners consent. Belief or absence of belief may be relevant to dishonesty but not the issue of appropriation.
Gomez: Further discussion of consent- What happened and what was held?
Gomez, an assistant manager, persuaded his manager to accept two stolen checks for £17,000 worth of electronics.
Gomez did not inform the manager that the checks were stolen or verify them with the bank as instructed.
The Court of Appeal initially quashed the theft conviction, citing Morris.
The House of Lords overruled, stating:
No need for adverse interference with the owner’s rights for appropriation.
Following Lawrence, appropriation can occur with the owner’s consent.
The conviction was upheld, with Lawrence as the authority on appropriation.
Consent: Hinks
D- career- persuaded man (53) of low intelligence to make gifts to her totalling 60,000 (almost all his savings).
Jury asked to follow conisder if V was mentally incapable of understanding giving a gift, and that a reasonable person would not have accepted it.
Held:
Lawrence followed again- H of L: 3-2 majority there was an appropriation as even where there is no deception there is appropriation
A gift from a vulnerable person can now amount to appropriation.
A later assumption: How can something be assumed later?
if someone innocently acquired an item but then appropriated it by “keeping” or “dealing with it” they have assumed the owners rights.
Timing of the appropriation: R v Vinall 2011
Facts: Two youths assaulted a cyclist, causing him to abandon his bike. They chased him, then one returned to take the bike, later abandoning it nearby.
Appeal: They argued no intent to steal through force and no intention to permanently deprive, as the bike was left in a place where it could be found.
Held: Convictions quashed due to misdirection. The jury was incorrectly asked to consider intent to deprive at abandonment, which is sufficient for theft but not for robbery.
R v atakpu and abrahams 1994
Facts: Defendants hired cars in Germany and Belgium using fake documents, then drove to Dover. They were arrested and charged with theft in the UK.
Held: Conviction quashed. Appropriation was determined to have occurred in Germany or Belgium, not within UK jurisdiction, so theft could not be prosecuted in England.
