Theft Flashcards
Theft
‘… the felonious taking and carrying away (amotio) of the property of another, for lucre’ Hume 1,57 remember HCJ - disregarded Hume John Smith
John Smith 1838
Facts: found number of items by side of road, inc sum of money + a pocket book which gave the name of the owner of the property. Charged with theft despite knowing the person’s identity. Argued that he must take the property from somebody, rather he found the property.
Held: Hume’s definition outdated - whilst not physically took prop from owner possession, he still approptaited it by keeping (princi: appropriation without physical taking)
MacMillan v Lowe 1991
Held, that there were sufficent facts and circumstances from which it could be inferred that M intended to appropriate another person’s cheque books and cards which he claimed to have found in a phone box, where the items were obviously valuable and bore the owner’s name and that of her bank, on M’s own account he had had them for at least four hours without attempting to return them to their rightful owner, and when intitially apprehended he did not mention them and attempted to conceal them when he was being searched. Held further, that a GBP 250 fine at GBP 5 per week was not excessive where M, on benefit, had a number of convictions for dishonesty and had previously been fined the same sum
The civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 ss 67-75; Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 s 74
relevance , sets out the law in this regards to the duties and obligations of persons who find property on the street
Theft
defined now as; The appropriation of moveable, corporeal things belonging to another, without consent, where the accused knows they belong to another and intends to deprive him/her of them and their use, permanently, indefinitely or temporarily
Black v Carmichael 1992
involved wheel clamping of a person’s car. The court held that this wheel clamping amounted to theft as the wheel clamper and intended to deprive the car owner of the use of thier property
Kane v Friel 1997
it was held inference of a ‘dishonest intention’ must be present for the crime to be proven. ( 2persons who were stopped by police in possession of a large quantity of copper pipe. They were on their way to metal merchants to sell the pipe. They said they found this pipe and there was no owners no sign no indication. they were charged with theft and convicted 1st instance. they appealed their convictions were quashed. This case can be distinguished against case of Mackenzie v McClain
Petrovich v Jessop 1990
held that inference of dishonest intention cannot be drawn where evidence to the contrary is believed ( a law student who picked up some books and walked out of the shop and was arrested for theft. student argued that provided evidence the fact they were sleep deprived (exams) they were not aware what they were doing and therefore could not possess the necessary MR
Grant v Allan 1988
Accused worked for a delivery company and eh made copies of computer printout of confidential information, lists of their customers contact details etc. Like in the previous case, intended to sell to rival companies, charge against was theft of the information. Once again, objected to the relevance, approving the comments in M, taking of information did not amount to theft. Information is not corporeal thus cannot be stolen.
Hamilton V Wilson 1994
Theft of child. Acknowledged father had no rights of access to his child. This was a deliberate taking of a child without consent. Biological parent was guilty of plagium
Dewar v HMA 1945
Accused was manager of a crematorium who had taken coffin lids to sell before they were burned. He tried to claim on appeal that there was no theft as the property had been abandoned but was not successful as it was decided he had to carry out the duty of burning the coffin lids before they could be called abandoned. The defence ‘error’ was repelled, property in trust of another
Herron v Diack 1973
the defence of ‘error’ was repelled here also- steal coffin trtied t take it to use the steel as it is expensive- wait it down before it goes up- argument- was i could do anything i like as no one owns it- mistaken of the legal rights- neither here or there- stole a steel coffin, defence of ‘error’ was repelled here also
LA v Aberdeen University 1963
This case involves treasure. Some 28 items of 8th century treasure was found in a wooden box underneath a stone marked with a cross, during an archaeological dig by Aberdeen University on St Ninian’s Isle, lying at the southern end of Shetland. Photos of the items can be seen here. The university took the items back to Aberdeen, intending to exhibit them in the university museum. The Lord Advocate is the lawyer in Scotland tasked with looking after the Queen’s interests in Scotland, and who takes out any court actions needed to enforce those interests. Mr Budge was the owner of the land the treasure was found on. The court that the box belonged to Crown.
Fowler v O’Brien 1994
victim playing with his bike on the street when the accused came along asked for shot of his bike, he refused, took anyway and return it. The accused was refused a ‘shot’ of the victim’s bike, but took it anyway and didn’t return it.
Strathern v Seaforth 1926
convicted of clandestine taking of car - not theft then but it would be now, intention to return
Kivlin v Milne 1979
defendant took a car without the owner’s consent and hid it over the corner
Road Traffic Act 1988 s 178
otherwise known as “taking and driving away a motor vehicle” has the defence open to him that he was not aware that the driver of the vehicle had not given permission for the vehicle to be used
Milne v Tudhope 1981
the home owner to do some work on their property so the home builder did the work (was not up to scratch) homeowner asked the builder to remedy their works, he did. He asked for payment for extra working homeowner refused he thought it was paid, builder took things from house (doors, windows, boiler) Appeal court held that this is a fact constitute theft, refuse appeal. Here retaining items belonging to house owner to force payment for work.
Kidston v Annan 1984
customer took TV to ask for a quote for repair carried out repairs without permission, refusal to return TV set in workshop for repair (which was not agreed by the parties) held that it was theft
Burn v Allan 1987
Aggravated theft (Housebreaking); attempted HB with intent to steal by disconnecting a security alarm
Heywood v Reid 1995
smashing an external security light = attempted HB
Lafferty v Wilson 1990
Charged with breaking into an unoccupied building with intent to steal- Court was not entitled to infer building was secure
The civic Government (S) Act 1982 s 57, s 58
(convicted thief in possession)
Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 s 57(1)
“Any person who, without lawful authority to be there, is found in or on a building or other premises, whether enclosed or not, or in its curtilage or in a vehicle or vessel so that, in all circumstances, it may reasonably be inferred that he intended to commit theft there shall be guilty of an offence”