property offences Flashcards
what is the definition of theft?
theft act 1968 - a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving other of it.
what are the elements of theft?
dishonestly mr s2
appropriates ar s3
property ar s4
belonging to another ar s5
with the intention to permanently to deprive mr s6
what is meant by appropriation?
- the act of taking something
This can also include destroying property picking up an item, throwing items away, selling property , switching price labels on them giving worthless cheques to pay , recieving gifts and deciding to keep them.
what is the legal definition of appropriation?
s3 (1) “ 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 a right to it keeping or dealing with it as owner.
so, if you deal with the property as if you own it, then you are appropriating it.
R v Vinall 2011
Two young men were out cycling when they encountered the defendants, who subjected them to verbal abuse and then punched one from his bike, made other threats and then chased them for short distance. The defendants walked away, one of them having picked up the bike. The bike was left by a bus shelter some 45 metres further on and the police stopped them about half a mile away. The appeal against convicition raised issues of appropriation , intention permently to deprive and the time at which and the purpose for which force was used in determining whether robbery had been committed. With respect to appropriate, the court of appeal states either two actions could be regarded as a sufficient assumption of the rights of owner:
- the initial taking of the bike
- the subsequent act of abandoning the bike.
legal principle: the defendant must ‘assume’ at least one right of ownership
R v Pitham and Hehl 1977
D sold furniture belonging to another person and in that person’s house. This was held to be an appropriation. The offer to sell was an assumption of the rights of an owner and the appropriation took place at that point. It did not matter whether the furniture was removed from the house or not. Even if the owner was never deprived of the property, D had still appropriated it by assuming rights of the owner to offer the furniture for sale.
legal principle appropriation can be assuming the right to sell the property even if it is never removed.
R v Morris 1983
D had switched the price labels of two items on the shelf in a supermarket. He had then put one of the items, which now had the lower price on it , into a basket provided by the store for shoppers and taken the item to checkout when he was arrested. His conviction for theft was upheld as the owners rights to put a price label on the goods was a right that had been assumed.
legal principle it does not have to be all rights of ownership that are assumed
what is meant by consent to the appropriation?
can a defendant appropriate and item when it has been given to them by the owner
the theft act 1968 does not state that the appropriation has to be without consent of the owner the previous law stated that theft could only occur where the owner did not consent.
Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolition police 1972
An italian student , who spoke very little english, arrived at victoria station and showed an address to Lawrence who was a taxi driver. The journey cost 50p but Lawrence told him it was expensive. The student got out a £1 note and offered it to the driver. Lawrence said it was not enough and so the student opened up his wallet and allowed lawrence to take out a further £6.
Lawrence put forward the arguement that he had not appropriated the money as the student had consented to him taking it. The court stated that there was an appropriation in this situation.
legal principle appropriation can happen even with the owners consent.
R v Gomez 1993
D was a shop assistant. He had persuaded the manager to accept in payment for goods, two cheques which he knew to be stolen and had no value. The court stated that an act expressly or implied
