Theft

Question 1

Theft

Answer 1

‘… the felonious taking and carrying away (amotio) of the property of another, for lucre’ Hume 1,57 remember HCJ - disregarded Hume John Smith

Question 2

John Smith 1838

Answer 2

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Held: Hume’s definition outdated - whilst not physically took prop from owner possession, he still approptaited it by keeping (princi: appropriation without physical taking)

Question 3

MacMillan v Lowe 1991

Answer 3

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

Question 4

The civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 ss 67-75;
Civic  Government (Scotland) Act 1982 s 74

Answer 4

relevance , sets out the law in this regards to the duties and obligations of persons who find property on the street

Question 5

Theft

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Black v Carmichael 1992

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Kane v Friel 1997

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Petrovich v Jessop 1990

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Grant v Allan 1988

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Hamilton V Wilson 1994

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Dewar v HMA 1945

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Herron v Diack 1973

Answer 12

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

Question 13

LA v Aberdeen University 1963

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Fowler v O’Brien 1994

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Strathern v Seaforth 1926

Answer 15

convicted of clandestine taking of car - not theft then but it would be now, intention to return

Question 16

Kivlin v Milne 1979

Answer 16

defendant took a car without the owner’s consent and hid it over the corner

Question 17

Road Traffic Act 1988 s 178

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Milne v Tudhope 1981

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Kidston v Annan 1984

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Burn v Allan 1987

Answer 20

Aggravated theft (Housebreaking); attempted HB with intent to steal by disconnecting a security alarm

Question 21

Heywood v Reid 1995

Answer 21

smashing an external security light = attempted HB

Question 22

Lafferty v Wilson 1990

Answer 22

Charged with breaking into an unoccupied building with intent to steal- Court was not entitled to infer building was secure

Question 23

The civic Government (S) Act 1982 s 57, s 58

Answer 23

(convicted thief in possession)

Question 24

Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 s 57(1)

Answer 24

“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”

Question 25

Scott v Friel 1999

Answer 25

S appealed against conviction under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 s.57(1), having been found in the doorway of a shop with a Stanley knife, a knife and a crowbar. The doorway was in the form of an alcove surrounded by the shop windows in which goods were displayed. S argued that the Crown had failed to prove that S was there without lawful authority. There was no barrier preventing members of the public from entering the alcove. S had had every right to be there. If the Crown’s argument, that the intention to commit theft could be regarded as negating such authority, were accepted, the words “without lawful authority” in s.57(1) would be surplusage.
Held, allowing the appeal, that the Crown’s argument would not necessarily render the phrase purposeless, at least so far as public places were concerned. However in a case such as the present the generally implied authority was the starting point. With the Crown requiring to prove an exception, the inference of lack of lawful authority could not properly be drawn from the mere fact that an intention to commit theft could be inferred. Opinion of the Court per Lord Prosser.

Question 26

Marr v Heywood 1993

Answer 26

The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, s.57(1), provides that any person who, without lawful authority to be there, “is found in or on a building or other premises”, in circumstances in which it might reasonably be inferred that he intended to commit theft, shall be guilty of an offence. An accused person was charged with contravention of s.57(1). There was evidence that the complainer, alerted by the back door alarm of his house, had gone out into his back garden and had seen a figure climbing over the fence. The complainer had followed the figure and found the accused in a neighbour’s garden. In response to a subsequent caution and charge, the accused had replied “I didn’t get into the house, you can’t do me with this”. The accused was convicted and appealed, arguing that since the complainer had not identified him on the premises, there was no direct evidence that he had been found there and the sheriff had not been entitled to convict.
Held, that there was direct evidence from an eye-witness of the presence on the premises of a person who had turned out to be the accused, and since that evidence was corroborated by the accused’s reply when cautioned and charged, the sheriff had been entitled to hold that the accused had been “found” on the premises; and appeal refused (Maclean (Philip Thornton) v Paterson 1968 J.C. 67, [1968] 7 WLUK 69 distinguished).