Property Offences: Theft Flashcards
where is the law for theft found
s.1(1) Theft Act 1968
what is s.1(1) TA 1968
guilty of theft if D (v) dishonestly (iii) appropriates (i) property (ii) belonging to another with the (iv)intention of permanently depriving the other of it
what type of crime is theft
conduct crime
who must prove what about to establish theft
prosecution must prove D has satisifed every element in s.1(1) AND that all the elements occurred at the same time
what is the AR of theft
appropriating property belonging to another
where is the law for property found
s.4 TA 1968
give all the subsections regarding to property
-s.4(1); property = money, real or personal things incl things in action and intangible property
-s.4(2); land cannot be stolen unless (a)trustee dishonestly disposed of property + (b) theft incl anything forming part of land or (c) structures let to be used with the land
-s.4(3) wild plants
-s.4(4) wild animals
give 5 cases regarding property
-Ferens v O’Brian; water stored in container= property
-R v White; gas = property
-Oxford v Moss; confidential info is not property
-R v Sharpe; corpse not property unless sampled/stored eg urine in R v Welsh
what happened/ is the legal principle in Ferens v O’Brian
water stored in container= property
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v White
gas = property
what happened/ is the legal principle in Oxford v Moss
confidential info is not property
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Welsh
-urine sample = property
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Sharpe
corpse not property unless sampled/stored eg urine in R v Welsh
where is the general rule for belonging to another found
s.5(1) TA 1968
“property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having any proprietary right or interest”
what are the subsections relating to belonging to another and the cases that support them
-s.5(3); if D required to handle property in a certain way and doesnt that is theft
-supported by R v Hall, but D has no obligation
-s.5(4) if D gets property by mistake he has a legal obligation to return it
-supported by A-G’s Ref 1994, D had legal obligation to return overpaid wages
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Hall
-if required to handle property in a certain way and doesnt it is theft s.5(3)
- D had no obligation
what happened/ is the legal principle in A-G’s Ref 1994
-D had a legal duty to return overpaid wages
-s.5(4)
where can the law for appropriation be found
s.3(1) TA 1968
‘Any assumption by 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 by keeping it or dealing with it as an owner’
give 5 cases/ legal principles relating to appropriation
-R v Morris; swapping labels in shop= appropriation
-R v Gomez; conf Morris that just one appropriation of rights sufficient
-R v Lawrence; can be appropriation with consent
-R v Hinks;D was incapable of making valid gifts
-Broome v Crowther; proximity/ physical contact with property not necessarily needed, depends how long you keep it for
what happened/ is legal principle in R v Morris
-swapping labels in shop= appropriation
-just one appropriation is sufficient
what happened/ is legal principle in R v Gomez
-conf Morris that just one appropriation of rights sufficient
-D convinced shopowner to take stolen cheques
what happened/ is legal principle in R v Lawrence
-can be appropriation with consent
-interntaional student held wallet out for taxi driver to take money
what happened/ is legal principle in R v Hinks
D was incapable of making valid gifts due to low intelligence
what happened/ is legal principle in Broome v Crowther
-proximity/ physical contact with property not necessarily needed, depends how long you keep it for
what is the MR of theft
-dishonestly
-intent to permanently deprive (ulterior mens rea element)
when does ItPD occur
-at relevant moment of appropriation
-borrowings with intent to return is not theft
what is s.1(2) TA 1968
-doesnt matter if D gains or benefits from property
-only depriving V of property matters
how/where is ItPD defined
-no statutory definition
-s.6(1) extended so; if D didnt ItPD, theft may still have ItPD in certain circs due to period of time or treatment of property as of the owner
what are the 3 cases relating to ItPD
R v Lloyd; borrowec cinema tapes to copy but no ItPD so no theft
R v Velumyl; D intended to pay back stolen notes but not EXACT notes
R v Easom; conditional intent, D only rummaged in handbag
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Lloyd
borrowed cinema tapes to copy but no ItPD so no theft
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Velumyl
D intended to pay back stolen notes but not EXACT notes
what happebed / is the legal principle in R v Easom
-conditional intent insufficient for theft
-D only rummaged in handbag
how is dishonestly defined instatute vs common law
-statute = narrow
-common law = wide
where is the law for dishonestly found + what is it
s.2(1) not dishonest if;
(a) belief in law he has a right to deprive other of it
(b)belief he would have others consent
(c) belief owner could not be found using reasonable steps
what are the legal principles/case regarding dishonestly besides s.2(1)(a,b,c)
-s.2(2); not dishonest if D willing to pay for it
-R v Feely; dishonesty is a question for the jury
-Ivey v Genting Casinos; new test for dishonesty, (subj + obj)
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Feely
-D was a shop manager who claimed he would have replaced money stolen, clearly dishonest
-dishonesty is a Q for jury
what is the legal principle in Ivey v Genting Casinos
1st subj limb; what did D know/ believe at the time (D’s mind not did D believe they were dishonest)
2nd obj limb; would ordinary decent people consider D’s conduct dishonest
