property offences Flashcards
Remember the name an basic details
R v Vinall (must assume right of ownership)
Three youths were riding their bikes when one of the appellants shouted abuse at one and punched him off his bike. He ran off leaving his bike. The appellants then chased him, one of them went back and took his bike. The police were called and the bike was found abandoned at a bus shelter 50 yards away from where it was taken. They were convicted of robbery.
R v Pitham and Hehl (1977) ( appropriation can be assuming the right to sell)
D sold furniture belonging to another person and in that persons house. The offer to sell was an assumption of the rights of the owner and the appropriation took place at that point. D had still appropriated as he assumed the rights of ownership.
R v Morris (Not all rights of ownership are assumed)
D had switched the price labels of two items on the shelf in a supermarket. He had then put one of the items into a basket and taken it to the checkout, when he was arrested. His conviction of theft was upheld as the owners right to put a price label on the good was a right that was assumed.
Lawrence v commissioner for Metropolitan Police (1972) (appropriation can still happen with consent)
A foreign student arrived in England and got into a taxi as he knew little English gave the driver a piece of paper with the address on it. When the taxi arrived at the destination the fair should have been around £1.50, the taxi driver then demanded more money from the student who open up his wallet for the driver to take the required amount. The driver took around £6 from the wallet. He was charged with theft.
R v Gomez (1993)
Gomez, was an assistant manager at an electrical good shop. He along with other co worker were asked by an acquaintance to supply goods from the shop in return for payment for two stolen building society cheques. Gomez prepared a list of goods to the value of the cheques in that sum. The manager instructed Gomez to confirm with the bank that the cheques were acceptable and he told him that he had done so and that a cheque was as good as cash. The bank manager then authorised the transaction and the goods were delivered. The cheques were then dishonoured by the bank and the involvement of Gomez and the employees were discovered.
R v Hinks (2000) (consent)
Hinks, a young mother, befriended a 53 year old man called John Dolphin. He had been left money by his father and was naive and gullible and of limited intelligence. Over a period of 7 months the appeallant influenced, coerced and encouraged Mr Dolphin to withdraw sums, amounting to £60,000 from his building society account and for them subsequently to be deposited in the appeallants account. She was subsequently convicted of theft and appealed on the grounds that the sums were given as a gift which were valid in civil law. The conviction was upheld.
R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1994) (appropriation happens the first time a right of ownership is assumed)
The defendants hired cars in Germany and Belgium under false driving licences and passports. They were arrested in Dover and charged with theft. The court of appeal quashed the conviction because the moment of appropriation under the law in Gomez was when they obtained the cars. So the thefts occurred outside the jurisdiction of the English courts and as the defendants had already stolen the cars in Belgium and Germany, keeping and driving them to England was a new appropriation- a later assumption of the right of an owner or a continuing act.
R v Kelly and Lindsay (1999)
Kelly was an artist. He was given permission to draw anatomical specimens held by the Royal college of surgeons. The specimens were of various body parts used for training purposes. During the course of his visits he met Kelly asked Lindsay to remove various body parts over a number of months. These included three human heads, six arms, ten legs, part of a brain and three torsos. Kelly made costs of the body parts which were exhibited in the art of the body parts which were exhibited in the art gallery. Both Kelly and Lindsay were convicted of theft and appealed contending the body parts did not constitute property lawfully in the possession of RCoS. Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.
Oxford v Moss (1979)
The defendant, a student of engineering, took an exam paper with the intention of returning the paper having used the info gained in order to cheat in his exam.
R v Turner (1971) (the person in control may not be the owner)
The defendant took his car to the services for repairs. When he went to pick it up he saw that the car was left outside with the key in. He took the car without paying for the repairs. He was liable for the theft of his own car since the car was regarded as belongin g to the service station as they were in possession and controlled it.
R v Woodman (1974) (its possible to be in control of property you don’t know exists)
A company had sold all the scrap metal on its site to another company which arranged for it to be removed. However, a small amount of the scrap had been left on the site. The company was in control of the site itself as it had put a fence round it and notices warning trespassers to keep out. D took the remaining scrap metal. He was convicted of theft even through the company was unaware there was any scrap left
R v Webster (2006) (proprietary interest)
D was an army Sargent who had served in Iraq. He had been awarded a medal for his service there. By mistake the Ministry of Defence sent him a second medal. D sold the second medal on eBay. He was convicted on the basis that the Ministry of Defence had retained an equitable interest un the medal. In other words, the ministry still had a proprietary interest in the medal.
R v Basildon Magistrates Court (2010)
The appellant took six bags containing clothing (second hand) and other miscellaneous items from outside a charity shop owned by Oxfam and the British Heart Foundation. He intended to sell the items at a car boot sale. The bags from Oxfam were taken from a bin outside the door to the shop in which people could leave donated items. The bags from BHF were simply placed outside the door to the shop. The magistrates committed the case to the crown court on the basis that he had stolen property belonging to Oxfam and he BHF. He brought an application for judicial review to quash their decision contending the items had been abandoned and therefore did not belong to anyone.
R v Hall (1972) ( there is only theft if there is an expectation to deal with the deposits in a particular way).
A travel agent received money from clients for deposits for their holiday. He paid the money into the general current account for the business. The business collapsed before he paid the money to book the holidays and the clients lost their deposit. It was held that the travel agent was not liable for the theft as there was no obligation to deal with the money in a particular way under s.5 (3) Theft Act 1968.
R v klineberg (1999) ( There is a clear obligation to deal with the deposits in a particular way)
The two defendants operated a company which sold timeshare apartments in Lanzarote to customers in England. Each purchase paid the purchase price on the understanding that the money would be held by an independent trust company unit the apartment was ready for the purchaser to occupy. Over £5000,000 was paid to the defendants’ company account. The defendants were guilty of theft as it was clear that they were under obligation to the purchasers ‘ to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way and that they had not done this.
