Property Offences: Theft Flashcards
Theft defined in which Act and section?
s1(1) Theft Act 1968
s1(1) Theft Act 1968
Provides definition of theft
Dishonestly (part of the mens rea)
s2 Theft Act 1968
s2 Theft Act 1968
Dishonestly (part of the mens rea)
Appropriates (part of the actus reus)
s3 Theft Act 1968
s3 Theft Act 1968
Appropriates (part of the actus reus)
Property (part of the actus reus)
s4 Theft Act 1968
s4 Theft Act 1968
Property (part of the actus reus)
Belonging to another (part of the actus reus)
s5 Theft Act 1968
Intention of depriving the other of it (part of the mens rea)
s6 Theft Act 1968
s5 Theft Act 1968
Belonging to another (part of the actus reus)
s6 Theft Act 1968
Intention of depriving the other of it (part of the mens rea)
What are the three actus reus elements of theft?
1) Appropriation s3
2) Property s4
3) Belonging to another s5
What are the two mens rea elements to theft?
A) Dishonestly s2
B) Intention of depriving the other of it s6
What is appropriation?
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner.
What case is an example of appropriation?
Give brief facts.
R v Vinall (2011)
Facts: D’s robbed a bike and abandoned it. The abandonment considered to be appropriation as it was assuming owner’s rights.
R v Vinall (2011)
Principle: Appropriation
Facts: D’s robbed a bike and abandoned it. The abandonment considered appropriation as it was assuming rights of an owner.
What case is an example of appropriation on the ground of selling?
Give brief facts.
R v Pitham and Hehl (1977)
Facts: D sold furniture that wasn’t his, therefore assuming the rights of an owner.
R v Pitham and Hehl (1977)
Principle: Selling is appropriation
Facts: D sold furniture that wasn’t his, therefore assuming the rights of an owner.
R v Morris (1983)
Facts
D switched price labels on products-considered appropriation
Case where D changed price labels on products?
R v Morris (1983)
What case is an example of appropriation with the V consent?
Give brief facts.
Lawrence v Commissioner for Met Police(1972)
Facts: D was a taxi driver who drove foreign student to a location and took more money than entitled to.
What case is an example of appropriation of consent with deception?
Give brief facts.
R v Gomez (1993)
Facts. D paid for products with cheques which D knew to have no value.
R v Gomez (1993)
Example of: appropriation with consent with deception.
Facts: D paid for products using checks he knew to be of no value.
What case is an example of appropriation with consent WITHOUT deception?
Give brief facts.
R v Hinks (2000)
Facts: D persuaded V (I’d limited intelligence) to gift her money
R v Hinks (2000)
Example of: appropriation with consent WITHOUT deception.
Facts: D persuaded V (of limited intelligence) to ‘gift’ her money.
What case is an example that intention must be formed at the point of appropriation?
Give brief facts.
R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1994)
Facts: D’s hires cars in Germany and Belgium and were arrested at Dover for theft. Conviction quashed as keeping and driving in England was not a new appropriation.
R v Atakpu and Abraham’s (1994)
Principle: that intention must be formed when appropriation occurs.
Facts: D’s hire cars abroad and were arrested in Dover. Convictions of theft quashed as appropriation occurred outside of England.
s4 Theft Act (1968) gives what 5 types of items which are included in the definition of property, what are they?
1) Money (coins and banknotes)
2) Real property
3) Personal property
4) Things in action
5) other intangible products
What case demonstrates that body parts can be considered property under the Theft Act 1968?
Give brief facts.
R v Kelly and Lindsay (1998)
Facts: Kelly (a sculptor) asked Lindsay to take body parts from the Royal College of Surgeons
R v Kelly and Lindsay (1998)
Example of: that body parts can be considered property.
Facts: Kelly (a sculptor) asked Lindsay to take body parts from the Royal College of Surgeons. D’s found guilty of theft
What is the definition of ‘real property’ under s4 Theft Act 1968?
Land and building
s4(1) Theft Act 1968
Land can be stolen
What act and section provides that ‘land can be stolen’?
s4(1) Theft Act 1968
What is ‘things in action’?
A right that can be enforced on another another person by an action in law.
Give an example of a ‘thing in action’.
A cheque
What is ‘other intangible property’?
Rights which have no physical presence like electricity.
What case demonstrates that confidential information cannot be considered property?
Oxford v Moss (1979)
Facts: D acquired exam answers. Found not guilty as confidential information is not property.
What sections for things which cannot be stolen?
s4(3)
s4(4)
s4(3) Theft Act 1968
s4(4) Theft Act 1968
Things which cannot be stolen except in specific circumstances.
What case demonstrates that someone can steal their own property?
Give brief facts.
R v Turner (1971)
Facts: D stole his car from a garage before paying for repairs.
R v Turner (1971)
Demonstrates: that someone can steal their own property.
Facts: D took his own car back from a garage before he paid for the repairs.
What case demonstrates that someone can be in possession and control of property even though they don’t know it is there?
Give brief facts.
R v Woodman (1974)
Facts: D took scrap metal from a site that the owner was in control of but didn’t know of the scrap metal presence.
R v Woodman (1974)
Demonstrates: that someone can be in possession and control of property even if they don’t know it is there.
Facts: D took scrap metal from site.
What case demonstrates the principle that foods left for someone, the goods belong to the original owner until collection by new owner.
Ricketts (2010)
Facts: D took bags containing items outside a charity shop-held that the bags belonged to the old owner until the charity shop collected them.
Ricketts (2010)
Principle: that property left for someone, belongs to the owner until collection by the new owner.
Facts: D took bags outside a charity shop-held that the bags belongs to the original owner until collection by the charity shop.
What case demonstrates the principle of ‘proprietary interest’?
Give brief facts.
R v Webster (2006)
Facts: D was in army. Awarded medal for service but mistakenly received 2 and sold the second on eBay. Held that MoD still had a proprietary interest in the medal.
R v Webster (2006)
Principle: proprietary interest
Facts: D was in army. Received medal for service but was sent 2 and he sold the second on eBay. Held that MoD still had a proprietary interest in the medal.
In what three occasions can a person be guilty of theft where the property does NOT ‘belong to another’?
1) trust property-where a trustee can steal it
2) property received under obligation
3) property received by another mistake
What case demonstrates misusing property received under an obligation can be considered theft?
Give brief facts.
Klineberg and Marsden (1999)
Facts: D’s sold timeshares but did not deposit investor’s money into trust company-D’s guilty of theft.
Klineberg and Marsden (1999)
Principle: that property misused when received under an obligation can be considered theft.
Facts: D’s sold timeshares but did not deposit investor’s funds into the trust. D’s charges with theft.
What case demonstrates that even informal arrangements can constitute a clear obligation to deal with property in a certain way?
Give brief facts.
Davidge v Bunnet (1984)
Facts: D was given money to pay for gas but used it to buy Xmas presents. D guilty of theft.
Davidge v Bunnet (1984)
Principle: informal arrangements can still constitute a clear obligation to deal with property in a particular way.
Facts: D was given money by flatmates to pay gas bill but bought presents instead. D charged with theft.
What case is an example that ‘property received by mistake’ and kept can constitute theft?
Give brief facts.
AG ref no. 1 of 1983
Facts: D, a policewoman received an overpayment of wages. She did not return the money. D convicted of theft.
AG ref no. 1 of 1983
Principle: that ‘property received by a mistake’ and kept can constitute theft.
Facts: D, a policewoman, was overpaid wages but did not return the extra amount. D convicted of theft.
What case is an example of no legal obligations to restore money then no theft has occurred.
Give brief facts.
R v Gilks 1972
Facts: Bookmaker overpaid D his winnings but D did not return the extra. He was found NOT guilty of theft as betting transactions were not enforceable at that time.
R v Gilks 1972
Principle: that in some situations there is no legal obligation to restore money.
Facts: Bookkeeper overpaid D his winnings and D did not return the extra. D was found NOT guilty of theft as betting transactions were not enforceable at the time.
What section and act provides for ‘behaviour which is not dishonest’?
s2(1) Theft Act 1968
s2(1) Theft Act 1968
Behaviour which is not dishonest regarding the mens rea of theft.
What are the three behaviours which are not dishonest, regarding the mens rea of theft?
D believes that:
- They have the right to it-s2(1)(a)
- they would have the other’s consent s2(1)(b)
- the person to whom property belongs cannot be found by any reasonable steps s2(1)(c)
s2(1)(a) Theft Act 1968
D believed they had a right to the property
D believed they had a right to the property.
s2(1)(a)
s2(1)(b)
D believed they would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances
D believed they would have the other’s consent.
s2(1)(b)
s2(1)(c)
The person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by any reasonable means
The person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by any reasonable means
s2(1)(c)
What case demonstrates that even an unreasonable belief does not necessarily constitute dishonesty, regarding the mens rea of theft.
Give brief facts.
R v Small (1987)
Facts: D took a car that had been abandoned for two weeks. D found NOT guilty of theft.
R v Small (1987)
Principle: that even an unreasonable belief does not necessarily constitute dishonesty, regarding the mens rea of theft.
Facts: D took a car that had been abandoned for 2 weeks. D found NOT guilty of theft.
What 2 cases are examples that if D believes they have a right to the property they are not necessarily held to be dishonest?
R v Holden (1991)-Kwik fit employee takes tyres
R v Robinson (1977)-D is owed £7 takes back £5
R v Holden (1991)
Principle: a person will not be considered dishonest where they believed they were entitled to deprive the other of it
Facts: D took scrap tyres from Kwik fit where he worked as others had done the same. D NOT charged with theft.
R v Robinson (1977)
Principle: a person will not be considered dishonest where they believed they were entitled to deprive the other of it
Facts: D was owed £7 and took back £5 after a scuffle with the husband of the borrower
What case established the test for dishonestly, regarding the mens rea of theft?
Give brief facts.
R v Ghosh (1982)
Facts: D was a doctor and claimed back funds for an op he didn’t conduct as they matched what he was owed for consultation fees.
R v Ghosh (1982)
Principle: the Ghosh test
Facts: D was a doctor who claimed fees for an op he didn’t conduct as they were equal to fees he was owed for consultation.
What are the two stages of the Ghosh test?
1) Was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable people?
2) Did D realise what they were doing was dishonest by those standards?
What case brings doubt on the second part of the Ghosh test?
Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)
Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)
Gives doubt for the second part of the Ghosh test.
What case demonstrates that the Ghosh test has some problems?
Give brief facts.
DPP v Gohill (2007)
Facts: D’s worked at equipment hire company and weren’t charging some customers for hiring tools. D’s did not make personal gain. D’s not guilty of theft.
DPP v Gohill (2007)
Demonstrates: that there are some issues with the Ghosh test.
Facts: D’s worked at tool hire company and didn’t always charge customers. No gain was made by D’s. D’s not charged with theft.
What case demonstrates that taking cash from a toll with the intention of replacing is still theft?
R v Velumyl (1989)
Facts: D took money from safe of employer with intention to replace. Classed as theft as he couldn’t possibly replace the banknotes themselves.
R v Velumyl (1989)
Principle: that even if there is an intention to take cash and replace it in future, that is still classed as theft.
Facts: D took cash from safe with intention to replace. Classed as theft as D could not possibly replace the cash itself.
What case demonstrates that the property doesn’t have to be disposed of by D but simply used as the genuine owner would for a conviction of theft?
DPP v Lavender (1994)
Facts: D took doors from a council property to put on his own council property.
DPP v Lavender (1994)
Principle: that D doesn’t have to dispose of property to have intention to deprive the owner. Just use it as if they were the owner.
Facts: D swapped the doors on house council flat to his own council house.
Which case demonstrates that borrowing or lending isn’t necessarily an offence?
R v Lloyd (1985)
Facts: D made illegal copy of a film that was to be shown in cinema. D found not guilty of theft as he intended to replace it.
R v Lloyd (1985)
Principle: the difference between borrowing and taking is if the borrowing becomes to an extent that the property is useless to the original owner.
Facts: D made an illegal copy of a film from the cinema using the physical tape, but returned it later. D not guilty of theft.
What case demonstrates that someone can temporarily take possession of property only to return it later and not be intending to deprive the other of it?
R v Easom (1971)
Facts: D took someone’s handbag, rummaged inside, then returned it as there was nothing worth stealing. D not guilty of theft.
R v Easom (1971)
Principle: what if D examines property but the decides not to steal anything?
Facts: D took handbag but returned it after deciding there was nothing worth stealing.
