Property Offences (done) Flashcards
What is the definition of theft?
Section 1(1) Theft Act 1968 says that a person is guilty of theft if D dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
How many elements for the actus reus of theft is there?
3
What are the 3 elements for the actus reus of theft?
1) Appropriation
2) Property
3) Belonging to another
What is appropriation and what does the law say?
Appropriation is the act of taking something. Section 3(1) Theft Act 1968 says “Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation”
What are the rights of an owner (10)?
1) Possession and use
2) Change/alter, damage, and destruction
3) Consumption
4) Temporary disposal by loan
5) Permanent disposal by way of sale, gift or abandonment
6) Offer for sale
7) Exchange
8) Gambling property
9) Arranging to dispose of it
10) To abandon it
What happened in Morris (1984)?
The defendants were convicted of theft under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 after switching the labels on products in a supermarket to obtain a lower price.
How is appropriation established?
Through comparing the defendant to the reasonable man. Morris (1984)
Can consent amount to a defence in theft?
Yes because once you touch somebody’s property you are appropriating with or without permission. However an appropriation will not amount to theft unless accompanied by dishonesty and other elements. Hinks (1998)
What is the definition of property and what does the law say?
Section 4(1) Theft Act 1968 says, “Property includes money and al other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”
What does ‘Real property’ refer to?
Real property refers to land, not just the earth but also houses.
What does ‘personal property’ refer to?
‘Personal property’ refers to individual items such as cars, keys, wallets, clothes etc
What is ‘tangible’ property?
‘Tangible’ property is property which has a physical existence. This does not prevent preclude illegally help property.
What is ‘intangible’ property?
‘Intangible’ property is property with no physical existence such as a thing in action.
What is a thing in action?
A thing in action is a right that can be enforced but does not have a physical existence e.g contractual right, credit balance etc
Is confidential information property ?
No (Oxford v Moss)
Define belonging to another (3)
•Having possession or control or propriety right or interest (Turner) S5(1)
•Where D is given the property to deal with it in a particular way (Davidge v Bunnet 1984) S5(3)
•Where D is given it by mistake and has an obligation to restore it S5(4)
What are the 2 elements of the mens rea for a theft?
1) Dishonesty
2) Intention to permanently deprive
Define dishonesty
Section 2(1) of the Theft Act 1968 sets out three situations where as a matter of law the person is not dishonest
What are the 3 situations where by law a person is not dishonest?
(a) Where he believes he has in law the right to deprive the other of the property (R v Small 1987)
(b) Where he believes the other person would have consented to the appropriation and the circumstances of it. E.g unauthorised “borrowing” consumable goods from a neighbour or money from a friends purse (R v Holden 1991)
(c) (Unless he is a trustee or personal representative) where he acts in the belief that the true owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps (R v Thurborn 1849)
Could someone be dishonest even if they are willing to pay?
Yes as stated in Section 2(2) (Feely 1973)
Who decides if D is dishonest?
Dishonesty is a question of fact to be determined by the jury according to the standards of the ordinary decent person
What case establishes the new test for dishonesty?
The case of R v Barton and Booth (2020)
What does the test for dishonesty as established in R v Barton and Booth (2020) state? (2)
The jury will consider D’s knowledge or belief as to what was going on e.g. what made D act the way they did.
They will then apply the standards of ordinary reasonable people to judge that behaviour
What case shows intention to permanently deprive?
Easom (1971)