Property Offences Flashcards
R v Maihi
1992, COA (NZ)
THEFT
Maihi consensually tried on claimants jacket, then refused to give it back and offered to fight for it. Then left wearing jacket.
Held that this is theft by using or dealing, but not theft by taking (because there was consent).
Held that where there is no wrongful taking and possession is honestly obtained, any subsequent act that is inconsistent with the rights of the true owner is a conversion if carried out with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property = section 219(1)(b).
R v Russell
1976, COA (NZ)
THEFT
R hired an air compressor but specified no return date on contract (bailment). He gave false contact information so compressor was missing until it turned up a month later spray painted.
Held that this was theft by using or dealing.
Paint job was enough because it demonstrated interference with owners right / doing something with property that you do not have a right to do / inconsistent with bailee rights - You would not be able to say that you were allowed to repaint the machine based on paying deposit.
Brown v Police
1984, HC (NZ)
CLAIM OF RIGHT
Brown removed a section of concrete work equivalent to the payment still outstanding and charged with wilful damage.
Held that this was not theft because Brown had a claim of right.
Brown thought “title” to the concrete work remained with them until payment in full had been made therefore they thought they could remove the concrete. They were not saying they didn’t know about the law of willful damage but about a property law principle which is a valid defence.
R v Morunga
2000, COA (NZ)
INTENTION TO PERMANETLY DEPRIVE
Appellant worked as a bar manager and part of job was to check gaming machines each evening, empty machines and bank profits. After locking up he would take cash from machines and play the machines - if he won he would put money back.
Held this was not theft because there was no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
The time at which intention is considered is the time the property is moved, therefore there was no intent to permanently deprive because when he removed the coins from the machine his intent was to put them back into the machine. It was only if he made winnings that he would then steal.
Held intent to only deprive owner of property temporarily is not stealing.
Rex v Barnard
1837
FALSE REPRESENTATION
Accused dressed up in university cap and gown and went into a shop to obtain boot straps on credit.
Held that this was deception even though nothing had been said his appearance was enough for the shop assistant to infer that he was someone he wasn’t.
Held that representation by conduct is a sufficient false pretence.
Police v Dronjak
1987, HC (NZ)
SILENCE
Accused purchased car stereo which had two price labels on it. The cheaper one was processed and accused released but said nothing. There was no evidence of label swapping.
Held that this was not theft because he had consent of possession and title of the stereo after paying what was asked of him.
Silence and paying was a representation that the correct price had been rung up, he deliberately refrained from saying anything and that was a false pretense. Conviction for theft quashed and substituted to obtaining by deception.
Morley v R
2009, COA (NZ)
ACTUAL LOSS
M contracted to purchase four properties none of which proceeded to settlement. M knew he did not have the means to complete contracts at the time he entered them. No vendor was deprived of house.
Held that one of the four contracts were deception.
Only one contract was deception causing loss because it was unconditional and bank made her pay a fee for failed settlement. This loss was a real loss that resulted as a direct consequence of M deception.
The other contracts all failed for being conditional which never implied that you will settle or mere unconditional because on an expectation loss.
