Problems in the law of theft Flashcards
When the Theft Act of 1968 was passed, the deffiniton of theft was meant to be in simple everyday language that ordinary people could understand. However, why is this no longer the case?
as case cessions on the elements of theft have made the concept more difficult to understand in law
What is a key problem of appropriation in terms of size?
the fact the number of acts which can be considered are wide
Why is appropriation problematic because of dishonesty?
as dishonesty is a difficult concept of itself and to distinguish innocent appropriations and appropriates which are theft.
Appropriation includes the physical picking up of an item, destroying property, throwing items away, selling property, switching price labels and giving worthless cheques. What case decided that it needed to proved that the defendant assumed any of the rights of the owner?
Morris
Why could it be said that in terms of width of appropriate, the courts have gone beyond what was intended by Parliament?
as the Theft Act 1968 states “any assumption of the rights of the owners” whereas they have interpreted it as “the assumption of any of the rights”
Why is the case of Gomez and Atakpu and Abrahams contradictory?
as in Gomex the decision meant that the appropriation was considered to have occurred at one point in the whole process of theft, whereas in Atakpu and Abrahams, the defendants brought cars from another country which should have been considered as on-going as judges do in the cases of robbery
Which 2 cases established that theft is an on-going process which contradicts with robbery where the theft has to be immediately at the time of the stealing for the offence to have been committed?
Hale and Lockley
Which Lord has argued that the honest shopper is only doing what the shop expects and so has not assumed any of the right of an owner?
Lord Roskill
What would it be more appropriate to convict someone of when the owner consents to the taking of property due to a false statement?
one of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006
For cases prior to which year could defendants have been charged under the old offence of obtaining property by deception under s.15 of the Theft Act 1968 which would have made the law less complicated?
2006
Which 2 cases are examples of where there was an appropriation even where the owner consented to the taking?
Lawrence and Gomez
What happened in the case of Hinks?
the owner gave property to D but was convicted of theft as he was of low intelligence and vulnerable.
the owner gave property to D but was convicted of theft as he was of low intelligence and vulnerable.
What case is this?
Hinks
What does the decision in Hinks mean for criminal and civil law?
that it is in conflict
Because of the problems arising from making appropriation so wide, what is the only distinguishing point between theft and an honest appropriation?
proof of dishonesty is now the only distinguishing point
Why is it important that all criminal law should be as clear and certain as possible?
as a conviction of theft carries a social stigma
What is not enough for the offence of theft?
appropriation
What term has not caused any real problems?
‘property’
Why does the term ‘property’ not cause any real problems?
as the definition in the Act is so very wide that it includes almost everything
What does the Act state that ‘belonging to another’ includes situations of?
where property is in the possession or control of another, or where another person had any propriety right or interest in the property
Why does the deffiniton of ‘belonging to another’ need to be so wide?
as otherwise it might be difficult for the prosecution to prove that the victim was the legal owner
What test is criticised for dishonesty?
The Ghosh Test 1982
What is the main criticism of the Ghosh Test 1982?
that it leaves too much to the jury so that there is a risk of inconsistent decisions in similar situations.
What has been argued would improve the Ghosh test 1982?
if the judge were to rule on whether her was dishonesty as a point of law rather than leave it as a matter of fact for the jury
What does the Ghosh Test 1982 place too much emphasis on?
on objective views of what is dishonest rather than the defendants intentions
What does the first stage of the Ghosh Test 1982 require?
this requires that the jury should consider whether what was done was dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.
What does the complicated nature of the Ghost test mean for the case?
that trials take longer
What is the second stage of the Ghosh Test 1982?
the jury are to decide whether the defendant realised that what he was doing was dishonest by the standards of the reasonable man
Wat does Professer Griew point out?
that using a test of ordinary standards of the reasonable and honest people assumed that there is a common standard while society is actually very diverse.
What supported Professor Griew’s decision?
the law commission in their report on the law of fraud in 2002
Why have the law commission agreed with professor Griew’s view that the test of ordinary standards is flawed as it suggests that there is a common standard?
as the jury come from different backgrounds with different experiences in life, there is no common standard, varies from 18-70
What is the age variation in jurors?
18-70
What case demonstrates the problems with applying the Ghosh test 1982?
DPP v Gohill and another
What happened in the case of DPP v Gohill and another?
Ds worked for a company and hired out equipment without permission but had no personal gain. The court aquiited them as they had not acted dishonestly however on appeal they were found guilty for acting dishonestly by ordinary standards
Ds worked for a company and hired out equipment without permission but had no personal gain. The court aquiited them as they had not acted dishonestly however on appeal they were found guilty for acting dishonestly by ordinary standards
What case is this?
DPP v Gohill
What does the case of DPP v Gohill show?
that even magistrates and judges cannot agree on what is dishonest and so it is even more likely that jury decisions would likewise result in inconsistencies
What is the Ghost Test 1982, especially the first question, unsuitable for?
specialised cases such as financial dealing
Why is the Ghosh Test 1982 unsuitable for specialised cases?
as ordinary people have no experience
What is the first point which can be made from the intention to permanently deprive?
If someone dishonestly takes property belonging to another, does it matter whether they intend to permanently deprive another? Zerei case dumped car.
What car is an example of where it shouldn’t matter whether D did not intend to permanently deprive another if omeone dishonestly takes property belonging to another?
Zero and Lloyd
What happened in the case of Lloyd?
a film was copied and then returned was found not guilty as although he appropriated property belonging to another, he did not permanently deprive it- only temporarily
What would allow the defendant in Lloyd to be guilty of theft?
if the law was to abolish the need for an intention to permanently deprive
What is the reason for there being a seperate offence of taking vehicles without consent?
because of the need for there to be proof of an intention to permanently deprive another of property that the Theft Act 1968 includes
What is a ‘conditional’ intention to deprive?
this is where the defendant examines property to see if it is worth stealing, Easom
What happened in the case of Easom?
D picked up a handbag, and could not find anything worth stealing so put the bag back. Found not guilty as a conditional intention to deprive is not enough to convict the defendant of theft
What would solve the issue of conditional intent which has allowed defendants such as Easom to get away with the offence?
to replace the word ‘permanent’ with ‘temporary’ so that defendants acting in this way could be convicted
By replacing the word ‘permanent’ with ‘temporary’ so that defendants acting in this way could be convicted, ow would this be bringing the law in line with burglary ?
as in burglary the courts have ruled that a conditional intention to steal anything worth stealing in the building which the defendant enters is sufficient for the defendant to be guilty under s.9 (1) (a) of th theft Act 1968
