Property offences Flashcards
Elements of theft
Theft Act 1968
- Appropriation
- Property
- Belonging to another
- Intention to permanently deprive
- Dishonestly
- Appropriation
= assuming the rights of an owner
- Consent is irrelevant:
Gomez
- appropriation can occur even if consent of owner
- D was employee at electrical goods store and convinced manager to allow customer to use cheques that D knew were stolen thus worthless. Liable for theft.
- sparked considerable academic debate as says that D can, by deception, appropriate property. This creates an overlap with fraud offences.
Lawrence
- taxi driver took excess money from student for fare worth 50p
Morris
- switching labels of goods in supermarket was assumption of right of owner
Hinks
- conflict with civil law
- D befriended V who was naive and convinced him to transfer £60k and TV set
- valid civil law gift but liable for theft under crim law
- exploitation of V
- Keeping property, omission/failure to return
Subritzky
- NZ case
- D’s child innocently took toy from shop but D failed to take it back
- Exception: purchase made in good faith
Wheeler
- D was antique dealer who bought medal and resold
- only realised it was stolen after he stole it
- Property
Exceptions in statute
- land
- wild flowers
- wild animals
Common law exceptions
- Services
- Electricity
- Mere information does not qualify
- Oxford v Moss: uni student took exam paper - Body parts
- traditionally not property but changing
- Welsh: urine samples property as held/controlled for purpose
- Kelly: corpses property as being used for exhibition
- Belonging to another
Where another has possession or control / proprietary interest in property
- Possession or control
Rostron
- D trespassed onto golf course and took lost golf balls
- jury entitled to find balls belonged to another as golf course maintained possession and control of them
Turner
- theft by an owner
- D took car to garage for repair and took car without paying bill
- liable for theft as garage had possession and control of car
- Abandonment or loss
- rare
Williams v Phillips
- D took out rubbish from bins intended for rubbish collection company
Ricketts
- clothes left out for charity collection was not abandoned
- Property given for a purpose
Davidge v Bunnett
- flatmate gave D money to pay share of gas bill but D used money for shopping
Wain
- D fundraised money for charity and failed to give to charity
- Obligation to make restoration
AG’s Ref (no. of 1983)
- D received overpayment of wages from employer. Did not return when realised mistake
- Intention to permanently deprive
Where D treats property as his own regardless of others rights
- Change of mind
- does not matter as coincidence of AR and MR - Replacing with identical property
Velumyl
- D took money from employers safe intending to return
- liable as exact coins and notes would not be returned - Removing ALL value from property
Lloyd
- D, a cinema projectionist, made pirate copies of films and returned originals
- not liable as only some value of property removed
4. Conditional intention Easom - D took handbag to ascertain contents - decided not to steal - not liable
- Selling back to V
Raphael
- D took car and tried to sell back to V
- intention to permanently deprive - Abandoning property
Mitchell
- D took car and involved in car chase
- abandoned car, had no intention to permanently deprive
- Dishonestly
Statutory exceptions
- Belief of right to deprive
Skivington
- D demanded wifes wages - Belief he would have others consent
- Belief owner cannot be found after taking reasonable steps
Ghosh test
- Was D’s conduct dishonest according to the standards of the reasonable and honest person?
- Did D realise his conduct would be dishonest according to the standards of the reasonable and honest person?
Facts: D performed operations on patients when not appropriate and charged fees
Not a great test, too much burden on this element
People can have diff ideas of what is dishonest
