theft Flashcards
what act defines theft?
theft act 1968
what is the definition of theft?
s1 a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.
mens rea for theft?
dishonestly & intention to permanently deprive
actus reus for theft?
appropriation, property, belonging to another
appropriation
s3 any assumption of the rights of owner (1) any later assumption by keeping it or dealing with it as owner
Morris
swapping labels, assumed rights of owner
gomez
gave false cheque, manager still accepted it, Gomez still appropriated
hinks
receiving gifts from vulnerable people
property
s4 money, real and personal property, things in action, and intangible property.
land can be stolen 1
a trustee takes land in breach of his duty
land can be stolen 2
someone not in possession of the land severes something from it.
land can be stolen 3
if a tenant takes a fixture
s4 (3)
wild plants can be stolen if taken for a reward or any commercial purpose
s4 (4)
wild animals can be stolen if reduced into possession
r v kelly & lindsay
body parts
Oxford & moss
exam questions can’t be stolen
belong to another
a person having control or possession of the property, or he has proprietary interest. not required to legally prove possession
s5(2)
where trustee can steal trust property
s5 (3)
property received under obligation
s5 (4)
property received by another mistake.
r v turner
stole his own car, can be convicted of stealing your own property if someone else has proprietary interest
Ricketts v basildon mag court
took bag from front of charity shop and one from the back one from front still belonged to donator, one from back still belonged to charity shop.
r v dyke and munro
kept charities money, not belonging to donator, still guilty as holding money on behalf of charity
mens rea defintion
it is irrelevant what the motive of the defendant is if all the aspects of theft are present
dishonest
no definition but not dishonest if:
1a. legal right
1b. consent
1c. no owner
s2 (2)
a persona appropriation may be honest not withstanding he is willing to pay for the property
r v holden
scrap tyres , legal right
r v Robinson
fight over debt, money falls out d takes the money, legal right
r v ghosh
a doctor tried to claim money for a operation he didn’t do he believed he was owed this money for consultation
ghosh objective
has the d been dishonest by the ordinary standards of a reasonable honest person?
ghosh subjective
does d realise he is dishonest by those standards?
ghosh subjective removal
Ivey v genting in civil law
r v Gabon in criminal law
evaluation of ghosh
complicated for juries, trials longer, more expensive
morals differ with each individual
intention to permanently deprive
no definition but if d has the intention to treat property as his own regardless of others rights he has the intention
r v velumyl
took cash for debt was going to replace but intended to deprive those exact bank notes
lavender
dealing with doors as owner swapped council doors
Lloyd
took films to record but gave bak in same condition not guilty
