Problems in the law of theft

Question 1

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?

Answer 1

as case cessions on the elements of theft have made the concept more difficult to understand in law

Question 2

What is a key problem of appropriation in terms of size?

Answer 2

the fact the number of acts which can be considered are wide

Question 3

Why is appropriation problematic because of dishonesty?

Answer 3

as dishonesty is a difficult concept of itself and to distinguish innocent appropriations and appropriates which are theft.

Question 4

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?

Answer 4

Morris

Question 5

Why could it be said that in terms of width of appropriate, the courts have gone beyond what was intended by Parliament?

Answer 5

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”

Question 6

Why is the case of Gomez and Atakpu and Abrahams contradictory?

Answer 6

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

Question 7

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?

Answer 7

Hale and Lockley

Question 8

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?

Answer 8

Lord Roskill

Question 9

What would it be more appropriate to convict someone of when the owner consents to the taking of property due to a false statement?

Answer 9

one of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006

Question 10

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?

Answer 10

2006

Question 11

Which 2 cases are examples of where there was an appropriation even where the owner consented to the taking?

Answer 11

Lawrence and Gomez

Question 12

What happened in the case of Hinks?

Answer 12

the owner gave property to D but was convicted of theft as he was of low intelligence and vulnerable.

Question 13

the owner gave property to D but was convicted of theft as he was of low intelligence and vulnerable.
What case is this?

Answer 13

Hinks

Question 14

What does the decision in Hinks mean for criminal and civil law?

Answer 14

that it is in conflict

Question 15

Because of the problems arising from making appropriation so wide, what is the only distinguishing point between theft and an honest appropriation?

Answer 15

proof of dishonesty is now the only distinguishing point

Question 16

Why is it important that all criminal law should be as clear and certain as possible?

Answer 16

as a conviction of theft carries a social stigma

Question 17

What is not enough for the offence of theft?

Answer 17

appropriation

Question 18

What term has not caused any real problems?

Answer 18

‘property’

Question 19

Why does the term ‘property’ not cause any real problems?

Answer 19

as the definition in the Act is so very wide that it includes almost everything

Question 20

What does the Act state that ‘belonging to another’ includes situations of?

Answer 20

where property is in the possession or control of another, or where another person had any propriety right or interest in the property

Question 21

Why does the deffiniton of ‘belonging to another’ need to be so wide?

Answer 21

as otherwise it might be difficult for the prosecution to prove that the victim was the legal owner

Question 22

What test is criticised for dishonesty?

Answer 22

The Ghosh Test 1982

Question 23

What is the main criticism of the Ghosh Test 1982?

Answer 23

that it leaves too much to the jury so that there is a risk of inconsistent decisions in similar situations.

Question 24

What has been argued would improve the Ghosh test 1982?

Answer 24

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

Question 25

What does the Ghosh Test 1982 place too much emphasis on?

Answer 25

on objective views of what is dishonest rather than the defendants intentions

Question 26

What does the first stage of the Ghosh Test 1982 require?

Answer 26

this requires that the jury should consider whether what was done was dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.

Question 27

What does the complicated nature of the Ghost test mean for the case?

Answer 27

that trials take longer

Question 28

What is the second stage of the Ghosh Test 1982?

Answer 28

the jury are to decide whether the defendant realised that what he was doing was dishonest by the standards of the reasonable man

Question 29

Wat does Professer Griew point out?

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

What supported Professor Griew’s decision?

Answer 30

the law commission in their report on the law of fraud in 2002

Question 31

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?

Answer 31

as the jury come from different backgrounds with different experiences in life, there is no common standard, varies from 18-70

Question 32

What is the age variation in jurors?

Answer 32

18-70

Question 33

What case demonstrates the problems with applying the Ghosh test 1982?

Answer 33

DPP v Gohill and another

Question 34

What happened in the case of DPP v Gohill and another?

Answer 34

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

Question 35

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?

Answer 35

DPP v Gohill

Question 36

What does the case of DPP v Gohill show?

Answer 36

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

Question 37

What is the Ghost Test 1982, especially the first question, unsuitable for?

Answer 37

specialised cases such as financial dealing

Question 38

Why is the Ghosh Test 1982 unsuitable for specialised cases?

Answer 38

as ordinary people have no experience

Question 39

What is the first point which can be made from the intention to permanently deprive?

Answer 39

If someone dishonestly takes property belonging to another, does it matter whether they intend to permanently deprive another? Zerei case dumped car.

Question 40

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?

Answer 40

Zero and Lloyd

Question 41

What happened in the case of Lloyd?

Answer 41

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

Question 42

What would allow the defendant in Lloyd to be guilty of theft?

Answer 42

if the law was to abolish the need for an intention to permanently deprive

Question 43

What is the reason for there being a seperate offence of taking vehicles without consent?

Answer 43

because of the need for there to be proof of an intention to permanently deprive another of property that the Theft Act 1968 includes

Question 44

What is a ‘conditional’ intention to deprive?

Answer 44

this is where the defendant examines property to see if it is worth stealing, Easom

Question 45

What happened in the case of Easom?

Answer 45

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

Question 46

What would solve the issue of conditional intent which has allowed defendants such as Easom to get away with the offence?

Answer 46

to replace the word ‘permanent’ with ‘temporary’ so that defendants acting in this way could be convicted

Question 47

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 ?

Answer 47

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