Property Offences

Question 1

Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Comissioner (1972)

Answer 1

An act may be an appropriation notwithstanding that it is done with the consent of the owner. Consent to or authorisation by the owner of the taking by D is irrelevant. The question of consent should not be considered when defining appropriation.

Question 2

Morris (1984)

Answer 2

D appropriated items by switching the sticky labels on the items in a shop indicating their price. This was considered a right only belonging to the owner. Obiter dicta states appropriation involves an act by way of adverse interference with or usurpation of the rights of the owner.

Question 3

Gomez (1993)

Answer 3

Gomez was assistant manager in a shop who allowed his friend to use stolen cheques to pay for goods even though he was aware that they were stolen. He persuaded the manager by lying and saying that the cheques were as good as cash. He was charged and convicted of theft.
Appropriation should be regarded in isolation as being an objective description of the act done irrespective of the mental state of either the owner or the accused.
Supports Lawrence and rejects obiter in Morris.

Question 4

Hinks (2000)

Answer 4

D had become friendly with V, a 53 year old man. She successfully encouraged him to make a series of gifts totalling £60,000 and a TV set. The transfers were, valid gifts; though unintelligent, V clearly had the necessary capacity to dispose of his property if he chose. Girfts made by vulnerable persons to those who make abusive use of their moral power over them, like frauds, are potentially voidable, and V’s gifts to D might well have been voidable on this ground (crosswell v potter) However, this was not explored at trial, only dishonesty.
There was only a requirement of dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive for theft. Any narrowing of the definition of appropriation beyond this could lead to the acquittal of guilty persons.
Dissenting judgement of Lord Hutton revealed that it is against common sense to hold someone receiving a gift to be acting dishonestly. He held that linking mental capacity to the circumstances of dishonesty would be wrong.

Question 5

Briggs (2003)

Answer 5

D was involved in selling a house to an elderly couple. She acquired money fraudulemtly and there was an issue of whether this money had been appropriated within the meaning of the theft act. Where a victim caused a payment to be made in reliance on deceptive conduct by the defendant there was no “appropriation” by the defendant within the meaning of the Theft

Question 6

Pitham and Hehl (1977)

Answer 6

Hale was charged with robbery. D and another knocked on V’s door, D covered her mouth with their hand while the other took a jewellery box. D and another tied V up before leaving the house.
Held that appropriation does not suddenly cease and it is a continuous act. Intention to deprive the owner permanently was continuing at all material times. Both the tying up and the covering mouth therefore correspond to appropriation.

Question 7

Oxford v Moss (1979)

Answer 7

Theft Act 1968
Moss, a student at Oxford obtained a proof copy of an examination paper, and after having examined its contents, returned the paper to its original location. Although the contents of the paper was no longer confidential, it was found that because the university had not been deprived of any ‘property’ there had been no theft.

Question 8

R v Smith, Plummer and Haines (2011)

Answer 8

Drugs are a property which can be stolen or robbed. the fact that they are unlawfully in D’s posession is not a mitigating factor in this. There are other exceptions which cannot be stolen but drugs is not one of them

Question 9

Turner (no 2) (1971)

Answer 9

D took his car from the garage where it was being serviced without paying for it. D convicted for theft. Garage has posessory interest in the car sufficientl to qualify for §5(1). Judge directed jury that the question was whether the garafe has possession or control of the car, not related with lien - essential that D had acted dishonetly. Court did not qualify grounds doe possession or control. Strange decision since without the lien the car belongs only to D

Question 10

Ghosh (1982)

Answer 10

Gosh concerned a sergeon who cailmed fees he didnt deserve. The case provided the test for dishonesty until Ivey v Genting Casions overturned the 2nd limb.
1. According to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people was D’s act dishonest
2. Did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard what he did as dishonest?
Additionally,
The standards of honesty of the ordinary person are determined by the jury. The jury applies contemporary standards of what is honest (decided in Feely).
It is irrelevant whether D believes his conduct is dishonest. It is whether D thought reasonable people would regard his conduct as dishonest.
Facts must be taken as understood by D and how D believes most people would think them so to be.

Question 11

Lloyd (1985)

Answer 11

D, a film projectionist, borrowed films and passed them to E, who made and sold pirate copies of the films. The Court of Appeal ruled that this was not theft. Although §6 makes it clear that some borrowings do involve an intention permanently to deprive, the court held that a mere borrowing is never enough to constitute the necessary guilty mind unless the intention is to return the thing in such a changed state that it can truly be said that all its goodness or virtue is gone.

Question 12

Mitchell (2008)

Answer 12

D, who were a gang of thieves, having crashed their own getaway car took V’s car and abandoned it a few miles from V’s house in a street with the hazard lights on. This was held not to amount to a disposal. D did not intend V to lose her car permanently and D’s intention to take it temporarily could not be converted into an intention permanently to deprive by invoking §6(1).

Question 13

Hale (1978)

Answer 13

Hale was charged with robbery. D and another knocked on V’s door, D covered her mouth with their hand while the other took a jewellery box. D and another tied V up before leaving the house.
Held that appropriation does not suddenly cease and it is a continuous act. Intention to deprive the owner permanently was continuing at all material times. Both the tying up and the covering mouth therefore correspond to appropriation.

Question 14

Dawson (1977)

Answer 14

D nudged V and was pushed off balance. While he was trying to retain his balance his wallet was stolen.
Whether or not force has been used in a robbery is a question for the jury. It was decided that the nudge amounted to force.

Question 15

Collins (1973)

Answer 15

D was drunk and was ‘desirous of having sexual intercourse’. He looked into an open window of a house and saw V’s light was on and she was asleep in a bed close to the window. He undressed and approached her window with a ladder. V, seeing a naked form, thought D was her boyfriend and allowed him to enter the room and have sex with her. D was convicted of burglary with intent to commit rape, contrary to §9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. His conviction was quashed since the jury had not been invited to consider whether D intended to enter knowing that he had no invitation or was reckless of whether or not he had permission.
D entered a premises as a trespasser if he entered knowing that he was a trespasser or was reckless as to whether or not he was entering premises unlawfully.
This is a question for the jury to decide.

Question 16

Jones and Smith (1976)

Answer 16

Defendants S and J had entered a building belonging to S’s father and removed two television sets, on which the father reported the burglary and a police constable caught S and J driving a car with the television sets. Ds argued that they could not be convicted of burglary since they had not trespassed as S had general permission to enter the premises.
A person is a trespasser if he enters the premises of another knowing that or being reckless whether he was entering in excess of any permission that had been given to him to enter.
Contraversial since it left the fact of trespass to the mental sate of D

Question 17

Ryan (1996)

Answer 17

A householder at 2:30 am found D stuck in a window of his house. D had his head and right arm inside the window and was trapped by the window which rested on his neck. He was charger with and convicted of burglary.
Under §9 of the §968 Act a person can enter a building even if only part of his body was within the premises.
It is irrelevant whether or not D is capable of stealing anything because there was interference halfway through the act.

Question 18

Walkington (1979)

Answer 18

D entered a department store before closing time and went up to the second floor where a till was left open and unattended. D entered the area within the counter the till was on and pulled the till further open to see what was in. Since the till was empty he slammed it shut and while he was making his way out he was stopped by a store detective and arrested. D was convicted of burglary under §9(1)(a).
Entering into the counter area would consist of entering the area as a trespasser. The question was one for the jury to decide.

Question 19

R (Wilksinson) v DPP (2006)

Answer 19

Dealt with the increasing practice of prosecution to charge offences under §22 of the Theft Act 1968 instead with §329(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It was held that the offence under PCA 2002 was directed at money laundering and matters of serious criminality. The offence under PCA 2002 is easier to prove since the mens rea is ‘knowing or suspecting’ instead of ‘knowing or believing’ under TA 1968. PCA 2002 should therefore be resorted only in serious cases.

Question 20

Vincent (2001)

Answer 20

D had made agreements with proprietors of two hotels that payment would be postponed and therefore payment was not ‘expected’ of him. The judge allowed this since the requirement for ‘payment on the spot’ would be defeated by the agreements between the parties, even if they were obtained through deception.

Question 21

R v Valujevs (2014)

Answer 21

It was alleged that the defendants were unlicensed gangmasters who had abused their position by exploiting migrant workers by making unwarranted deductions from their wages, charging them excessive rental payments and imposing unwarranted fines on them. There was evidence that the defendants had the responsibility of paying the workers’ wages and controlling the amounts paid to the workers. The indictment charged that they had committed fraud by abuse of position contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 s.4. At the close of the prosecution case, the defendants made a successful submission of no case to answer. The judge held that a gangmaster was not a position which came within the ambit of s.4. He concluded that Parliament could not have meant for the provision to apply in general commercial areas where individuals and businesses competed in markets, including labour markets, and were entitled to look after their own interests. He found that the requirement to pay the minimum wage did not create a general obligation on gangmasters to safeguard the financial interests of their workers.
The appeal was allowed

Question 22

Smith (1947)

Answer 22

D was a tenant and with permission installed stereo wiring in his flat and later on covered it by mounting covering panels and other materials. When his tenancy ended, D damaged the panels in order to remove the wiring. By law, the panels had become part of the flat in which they were installed and therefore belonged to the owner. Although D was civilly liable for the damage, since he honestly believed that the panels were his he was not convicted of criminal damage.

Question 23

Denton (1981)

Answer 23

D set fire to his employer’s mill, acting on the belief that his employer had encouraged him to do so since the business was in difficulty and the fire would “help its financial circumstances”. The Court of Appeal quashed D’s convictions since the underlying fraudulent motive was irrelevant to criminal damage and D’s belief that he had consent from someone entitled to give the consent was sufficient to establish a lawful excuse.

Question 24

G and R (2003)

Answer 24

Two litte boys, fire in co-op. No criminal damage without recklessness which in this case is awareness of the risk. Due to their ages G and R were acquitted.

Question 25

Meech (1947)

Answer 25

Decided that ‘obligation’ under §5(3) referred to a legal obligation. A person who receives property from another may be under an obligation to retain and deal with it in a particular way so that the property is regarded as belonging to the other, despite the fact that the obligation cannot be legally performed or enforced. In the case, money was innocently cashed from a fake cheque into B’s bank account. B then found out about the fake cheque, but instead of dealing with the money, staged a fake robbery with C and D.

Question 26

Gilks (1972)

Answer 26

D bet on horses and the bookmaker handed him £100 extra. D was aware of the mistake but still took the money. He was charged with stealing the money contrary to §1 since the property belonged to another.
§5(4) had no application to the case as D had no obligation to pay back.
D bet on horses and the bookmaker handed him £100 extra. D was aware of the mistake but still took the money. He was charged with stealing the money contrary to §1 since the property belonged to another.
§5(4) had no application to the case as D had no obligation to pay back.

Question 27

Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)

Answer 27

Removed second limb of Ghosh test leaving only dishonesty:
According to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people was D’s act dishonest.
Problems of variation in moral standards
Does not allow for defendent’s status to be considered