Theft

Question 1

what was changed with the creation of the theft act to replace the larceny act?

Answer 1

no longer required to ‘take and carry away’
‘fraudulent and without a claim of right’ replaced by dishonesty
no longer identifies specific wrongs ex// stealing of cattle

Question 2

what was the intention of creating the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 2

modernise

reduce amount of offences

replace ‘take and carry away’ with ‘appropriation’

focus on dishonesty element

Question 3

what constitutes the offence of theft under s.1(1)?

what are the elements?

Answer 3

‘a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’

appropriates property
that belongs to someone else
dishonest
intention to permanently deprive

Question 4

how does s.3(1) define appropriation?

Answer 4

‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation’

Question 5

what words were read into the crime of theft in the Morris 1984 case?

Answer 5

‘without the consent of the owner’

switching of labels in a supermarket constituted theft because the label changing was done dishonestly without the consent of the shop

Question 6

what case removed the reading in of the words ‘without the consent of the owner’?
(to be followed instead of Morris 1984)

why?

Answer 6

Lawrence 1972

taxi driver had taken the money from the owner with their consent BUT had been dishonest as to the amount that was owed

Question 7

what other case highlighted that the consent of the owner is not relevant to the act of theft?

Answer 7

Gomez 1993

use of stolen cheques to pay in a shop
accepted by the shop assistant but still theft (perhaps more like fraud)

Question 8

what happened in Hinks 2000?

Answer 8

D befriended V and made V withdraw £300 a day until she had accumulated £60,000
D appealed on conviction of theft and claimed the money was a gift from V

Question 9

how was D found liable for theft in Hinks 2000?

Answer 9

weight placed on dishonesty

use of Vs vulnerability to assume the rights of the owner and appropriate property

focus on appropriation and dishonesty from Gomez and Lawrence cases

Question 10

what is meant by property ‘belonging to another’ under s.5?

Answer 10

‘belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest’

Question 11

why was confidential info not regarded as ‘property belonging to another’ in Oxford v Moss?

Answer 11

no intention to permanently deprive

no removal of complete value from the thing

(photocopying of an exam paper)

Question 12

what were the facts of Kohn 1979?

Answer 12

D had dishonestly drawn cheques from the company that went over the limit
D had stolen the ‘thing in action’ which was the right to draw/ it was this right that was appropriated
D had also stolen the cheque itself

Question 13

how can a cheque be understood?

Answer 13

not just a piece of paper

valuable security

representation of the thing/chose in action

Question 14

how can a banknote be understood?

Answer 14

‘bearer bond’ or ‘negotiable promissory note’

right to issue monetary value to the note - not just paper

Question 15

what case highlighted that the absence of someone else having a legal right to possess property prevents the ability to steal/appropriate?

Answer 15

Meredith 1973

car could be driven away by D as the police no longer had the legal right to hold onto the car

Question 16

what is meant by a ‘lien’?

in what case was the removal of this seen as theft?

Answer 16

a legal hold over goods until payment for something else is given

Rose v Matt 1951
lien of a clock was removed before payment of goods had been made by D

Question 17

what case highlighted that D can be found guilty of stealing their own property?

what case does this seem to conflict with?

Answer 17

Turner (no2) 1971

D took car to garage for repairs
took car back before paying
garage did not have to have possession or control of the car in the legal sense in order for it to be appropriated by D

Meredith 1973

Question 18

what is the MR/ fault element of theft?

Answer 18

intention to permanently deprive
‘dishonestly’

dishonest borrowing does NOT constitute theft

Question 19

why does dishonest borrowing not constitute theft?

Answer 19

because there is ‘no intention to permanently deprive’

the individual is not ‘treating the property as one’s own to dispose of, regardless of the other’s rights’

Question 20

why was Ds conduct not considered ‘dishonest borrowing’ in Velumyl 1989?

Answer 20

taking of the money from the employers safe does not constitute a borrowing

requirement for D to return the exact notes and coins which D did not have an intention to do

Question 21

what are 2 examples of where dishonest borrowing by D meant there was not a conviction of theft?

why?

Answer 21

Mitchell 2008
car hijacking

Vinall
bike snatching

both had intention to abandon the vehicles

Question 22

how does the Theft Act 1968 aim to define ‘dishonest’?

Answer 22

no definition of dishonest

only an inclusion of what doesn’t constitute dishonesty under s.2

Question 23

what does does s.2 define as conduct that is not dishonest?

Answer 23

D believes they have the right to deprive another by appropriation ex// leaving car wash with intention to pay later

D believes V would have consented if they knew of the appropriation and the circumstances ex// drinking the water that V left with the belief they would not come back

D believes that the owner of the property could not be discoverable by taking reasonable steps ex// taking a note off the street

Question 24

what is not sufficient under s.2?

Answer 24

willingness to pay later will not be sufficient to prevent D from being found as dishonest
ex// stealing something from a shop with intention to pay later online

Question 25

what two part test for dishonesty was established in Gosh 1982?

Answer 25

1. was Ds conduct ‘dishonest’ by the standards of reasonable and honest people?
2. did D realise that conduct was dishonest by these objective standards?

Question 26

how did Lord Hughes criticise the rule applied in Ghosh in the Ivy v Genting Casinos 2017 case?

Answer 26

should not be a consideration of Ds subjective standards of honesty
(2nd strand of Ghosh test)
standards of the ordinary person are needed to be applied

Question 27

what was the rule established in Ivy v Genting Casinos 2017?

Answer 27

purely and objective standard

whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people