Property Offences - Theft Flashcards
Theft Robbery Burglary Fraud
Basic definition of theft
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it”
Max years in prison - 7 years
It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
The five following section of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, expect as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).
What is the actus reus for theft
Appropriate
Property
What is the mens reus for theft
dishonesty
intention to deprive
Property offence 1:
Actus Reus: Appropriation
“Any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner 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 by keeping it or dealing with it as owner”.
Note 1:
The owner of the property has the right to do anything with it. The owner of a book can read it, throw it away, write in it or destroy it. Because property can be used in a number of ways, ownership carries a ‘bundle’ of different rights over property. e.g. the owner of a book could bury it in the garden.
Note 2:
It is because ownership conveys a bundle of rights that appropriation is satisfied by the assumption of ant of the rights rather than all of the rights of ownership; Morris {1984} AC 320 9HL0. A defendant who reads a book belonging to another, writes in it or destroys it has committed the Actus Reus of theft just as much as a defendant who has treated in a way that is more consistent with everyday notions of theft, i.e. taken it out of the owner’s possession.
Property offence 1:
Consent
DPP v Gomez {1933} AC 442 (HL)
The defendant was the assistant manager of an electrical goods shop who accepted worthless cheques. He told the manager that the cheques were valid so the manager authorised the release of property valued at £16,000. The defendant argued that he cold not be liable for theft because the manager consented to the removal of the property.
The House of Lords addressed the conflict between the previous cases and chose to follow Lawrence, holding that consent is not relevant to the question of appropriation.
If the person who has consented doesn’t know the whole truth then they cant be put liable but the person who had asked them would be liable.
Property offence 1:
Consent
But is it still theft if the owner gives their consent?
What if consent is given by the owner but this was given but that this consent was given through dishonest means?
R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 (HL)
Facts:
The defendant encouraged the victim, a man of limited intelligence, to withdraw money from the building society and deposit it in her account. She contended that these were valid gifts but was nonetheless convicted of theft.
Legal principle:
The House of Lords held that, following Gomez, receipt of a gift that amounted to a valid transfer of ownership at civil law could still amount to theft if it was dishonestly induced by the defendant.
Property offence 1:
Property
Real - land and the building on it. Real estate law governs who may own and use the land.
Personal - Any movable thing or intangible item of value that is capable of being owned by a person and not recognized as real property.
In action - Refers to a personal property right which can be legally enforced e.g. a patent right, a debt, a right arising under a trust, a right to overdraw and account, a cheque etc.
Intangible -Goodwill, brand recognition and intellectual property, such a patents, trademarks, and copyrights, are all intangible assets. Intangible assets exist in opposition to tangible assets, which include land, vehicles, equipment, and inventory.
Property offence 1:
Belongs to another
“Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having it in any proprietary right or interest.”
If Adam is in possession of a book belonging to Ben, then the book belongs to Adam (as he has possession and control) and Ben (as he has a [proprietary interest). This can lead to some complicated situations such as defendant can be liable for the theft of his own property
Turner (No.2) {1971} 1 WLR (CA): The defendant was held to be guilty of theft for removing his car from outside a garage where it had undergone repair. This was because the garage was in possession of the car so it belonged to them for the purposes of definition of theft.
IMPORTANT: The person in possession must use the property in the way intended by initial owner, and cannot have been given it by mistake.
Problems with dishonesty
D’s behaviour will not be dishonest if he : genuinely belives he has right to deprive, genuinely believes owner would consent, not reasonably possible tot rack down owner.
- Subject ghosh depends on what D thinks is reasonable
- Dishonestly difficulty for jurors, heavily weighted in objectivity
- Problems resolved
Property offence 1:
Dishonesty
Problem: The Theft Act 1968 only defines dishonesty by what it isn’t, leaving a more precise definition to case law.
Ivey V Genting Casinos 2017
The Ivey test on dishonesty:
Ivey V. Genting Casinos 2017:
Bootth & Anor V R 2020 confirmed Supreme Court comments in Ivey V Genting Casinos UK that the new test for dishonesty, as set out in Ivey, is:
- What was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts.
- Was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
Section 6
Section 6 A person is regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights borrowing or lending may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
R V Lloyd 1985
Facts:
The defendant worked at a cinema and removed films so that pirate copies could be made. The copying process took a few hours, after which the films were returned. He appealed against his conviction for theft on the basis that he intended only temporary deprivation.
Legal principle:
The Court of Appeal held that borrowing would only amount to outright taking only where the property was returned in such a changed state that all its goodness and virtue were gone. The partial diminution of value represented by the copying of the films would not surface despite the the reduction in revenue caused by the availability of pirate films.
Note:
One of the common mistakes is to focus on whether the property was actually taken on a permeant basis. This leads to inaccurate conclusions.
Not only can borrowing stisfy the intention permanently to deprive but situations that involve only a transient interference with another’s property can give rise to liability, I.e. picking up goods in a shop intending to permanently steal them but having a change of heart and leaving without them.
This is because intention to permanently deprive is concerned with the defendant’s state of mind, not his actions.
Consider what the defendant’s intentions were at the time he appropriated the property if it was to remove it permanently then his liability is established irrespective of what he actually went on to do
Confidentiality
Oxford V Mosss [1979] - confidentiality info does not fall into def of property (however did he take the info or or the paper?)
Summary
Actus Reus
- Appropriation - Morris [1984] (regarding bundle of rights of an owner)
- Consent - DPP v Gomez (Consent not relevant to appropriation)
- Dishonest receipt of a gift - R v Hinks [2001] (Dishonestly induced real, personal, in action, intangible)
- Property
- Belonging to another - Turner (No.2) [1971] (Where does possession imply ownership)
Mens Rea
- Dishonesty - Ivey v Gentling Casinos [2017] (test for dishonesty)
- Booth & Anor v R [2020] (confirmed Ivey as the new test
- Intention permanently to deprive - R v Lloyd [1995] ( Deprive only if value had been diminished
