Theft Flashcards
what is the definition of theft?
section 1 of Theft Act 1968 -‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’.
what are the actus reas parts of the theft definition?
s3- appropriates
24- property
s5- belonging to another
what are the mens rea parts of the theft definition
s2- dishonestly
s6- intention of permanently depriving
what is appropriation?
s.3 (1) of theft act
‘an assumption by a person of the rights of the owner’
taking something belonging to another.
morris (1984)
switching of labels on property owned by supermarket, appropriating owners rights
appropriation by assuming the rights to sell:
R v Pitham and Hehl (1977)
offered to sell friends property who was in prison
consent to appropriation:
Lawrence (1972)
D can appropriate an item with the consent of the owner if they thought that D was taking what was owed to him.
theft with expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner of the goods or consented to him:
R v Gomez (1993),
what is the maximum penalty for theft?
S. 7 sets out the maximum penalty for theft of 7 years.
what kind of offence is theft?
triable-either-way
consent without deception
R v Hinks (2000) woman using older man, gifted her constitutes appropriation
s.4 property
property includes money and all other property real or personal including things in action and other intangible property
can dead bodies, body parts be considered as personal property?
yes
R v Kelly and Lindsay
what is an example of property that is ‘things in action’
bank account
does confidential info pass as intangible property?
No
Oxford v Moss knowledge is not property
s.5 belonging to another
property must belong to another, wide definition so prosecution does not have to prove who the legal owner is
can owner be convicted of stealing his own property?
yes R v Turner , garage were in possession of his car until the payment is made, D guilty
is it possible for someone to be in possession/control of property even though they do not know it was there?
yes R v Woodman , D took remaining scrap metal, convicted even though company had no knowledge of it
items left at doorstep are in possession of whom?
in the possession of the person for whom the goods are left R v Basildon
what is the law on property received by mistake?
Attorney-Generals Reference , D receieved over payment of wage, reognised yet did not return, convicted as there is an obligation to return it
in some cases there is no obligation to return money , R v Gilks
s. 2 dishonestly
there are 3 exceptions where persons behaviour is not considered to be dishonest
what are the 3 exceptions to dishonestly?
- believes he has a right in law
- believes he would have the others consent
- the owner cannot be discovered
what is the case for exception 1) believes he has a right and actions are reasonable)
Small , thought car had been dumped
what are the 2 sections of the ivy test?
a) what was D’s actual state of beliefs as to the facts
b) was his conduct dishonest by the standard of ordinary decent people?
s6 intention to permanently deprive
the final element which is to be proved, treat the thing as his own to dispose off regardless of the other’s rights
intention to permanently deprive remains true even if D intends to replace the money later
R v Velumyl (1989)
conviction upheld even though D intended to return the borrowed money, the same exact banknotes will not be returned
borrowing is not theft unless it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
R v Lloyds
held that this meant borrowing it until the ‘goodness’ or practical value must have gone from the property
DPP v J and others
took, broke v’s headphone, permanently depriving as they can no longer function in the same way they did
DPP v Lavender
ruled that the dictionary definition of ‘dispose of’ was too narrow as a disposal can include ‘dealing with’ property
conditional intent
where D examines property to see if there is anything worth stealing R v Easom, not convicted as conditional intent is not enough to convict
a later assumption of a right
can be appropriation where d acquires property without stealing it, but later decides to keep it or deal with the property as the owner.
‘belonging to another’ and property received under obligation
where property is handed over to D on basis that D will keep it for owner or deal with it in particular way, theft act tries to ensure property is still considered to ‘belong to another’
Davidge v Bunnet
