Theft

Question 1

What is the definition of theft s 1 under the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Cases for theft

Answer 2

Lawrence (1972) - consent can’t be used as a defence if it is not ‘real consent’

Pitham and Hehl (1977) - selling someone else’s property is theft

Gomez (1993) - using stolen cheques is theft

Hinks (2000) - accepting a gift from someone who doesn’t have the capacity to make such a decision is theft if you know this

Atakpu and Abrahams (1994) - not theft if stolen abroad

Question 3

What is ‘real property’

Answer 3

Land and buildings

Question 4

Kelly and Lindsay (1998)

Answer 4

Property has a very wide-ranging definition and can include just about anything that can be owned, both tangible and intangible

Question 5

S 4(1) and S 4(2) state that theft of ‘real property’ can only be done in 3 circumstances:

Answer 5

• A trustee or personal representative taking land in breach of his duties.
• Someone not in possession of the land severing anything forming part of the land from the land.
• A tenant taking a fixture or structure from the land let to him.

Question 6

A ‘thing in action’

Answer 6

Can include a bank account or a cheque

Question 7

S 4(3) and S 4(4)

Answer 7

Things like plants and fungi growing in the wild, along with wild animals are considered things that cannot be stolen

Question 8

‘Belonging to another’ according to Theft Act 1968 s 5(1)

Answer 8

Not always necessary to prove who the legal owner of property is, rather the person who is in control of it at that time.
Turner (1971) stole his own car

• This could include somebody who has hired a car or even somebody who had originally stolen the property from somebody else

Question 9

Proprietary interest

Answer 9

When a person owns and is in possession and control of property, they can still be guilty of theft if somebody else has an interest in it. R v Webster (2006).

Question 10

Property received under obligation to deal with in a particular way s 5(3)

Answer 10

where property is received under an obligation to deal with it in a particular way. If the obligation is unclear, this cannot be theft even if say, money paid as a deposit into a business account is expected to be used for one thing, but ends up being used for something else – R v Hall (1972).

In Klineberg and Marsden (1999) the instructions were clear

Question 11

Property received by mistake s 5(4)

Answer 11

Attorney-General’s Reference (No.1 of 1983) (1985). There is a legal obligation to return the property here. There was a different outcome in R v Gilks (1972)

Question 12

Appropriation is NOT regarded as dishonest if…

Answer 12

• S 2 (1)(a) – they have the right to deprive somebody of it in law on behalf of
  somebody else. For instance, bailiffs.
• S 2(1)(b) – they have the other’s consent.
• S 2(1)(c) – the owner of the property cannot
  be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

Question 13

What does S 1(2) state about dishonesty and motive?

Answer 13

the motive of the defendant in appropriating the property is irrelevant. They don’t have to gain anything by it.

Question 14

If the jury decides that D had a genuine belief, however unreasonable, are they guilty or not? What are the cases?

Answer 14

they must be found not guilty – R v Holden (1991), R v Robinson (1977), R v Small (1987).

Question 15

Are they guilty if they say they were willing to pay later?

Answer 15

Yes, according to S 2(2)

Question 16

How did Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd (2017) change the Ghosh (1982) test?

Answer 16

The Supreme Court effectively did away with the second part (did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?) of the Ghosh test.

The first part was: was what was done dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people?

Question 17

What is the ‘intention of permanently depriving’

Answer 17

This is usually quite obvious – particularly if the defendant has taken cash and then spent it for instance.

• It also holds true even if the defendant intends replacing it later – R v Velumyl (1989).

• Some cases are not as clear-cut. S 6 Theft Act clarifies that ‘disposing of’ property includes ‘dealing with’ property. DPP v Lavender (1994).

Question 18

What is under s 1 of Theft Act 1968?

Answer 18

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

Question 19

What is under s 2 of Theft Act 1968?

Answer 19

Dishonesty

Question 20

What is under s 3 of Theft Act 1968?

Answer 20

Appropriation

Question 21

What is under s 4 of Theft Act 1968?

Answer 21

Property

Question 22

What is under s 5 of Theft Act 1968?

Answer 22

Belonging to another

Question 23

What is under s 6 of Theft Act 1968?

Answer 23

Intention to permanently deprive

Question 24

Borrowing or Lending. S 6 states

Answer 24

borrowing is not theft unless it’s for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

E.g. Lloyd (1985)

Question 25

Conditional intent

Answer 25

In R v Easom (1971), D picked up a handbag, rummaged through it and then returned it having taken nothing. There was no evidence of theft as there was no evidence D had intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag or its contents.

In 1982, Attempted theft is introduced in the Attempts Act. If this had happened after this, he would’ve been convicted of attempted theft

Question 26

What is the criticism with the interpretation of ‘assuming the rights of the owner’ by judges?

Answer 26

Includes too many different things such as switching price labels on items, throwing items away and even receiving gifts.

Some suggest that this is the courts going beyond what parliament intended, because the definition is too vague.

Question 27

Problems with ‘assumption at one point in time’

Answer 27

For the offence of robbery to be proved, there has to be theft immediately before or at the time of the stealing. You would assume then that this would be the same for appropriation but in R v Hale (1979) and R v Lockley (1995), it was decided that theft was an ongoing process.

Question 28

Problem with ‘consent to appropriation’ (hint: fraud)

Answer 28

The Fraud Act 2006 has made it more appropriate to charge the defendant with fraud, rather than theft if the owner consents due to a false statement, yet under the Theft Act 1968, s 15, they could have been charged with theft, obtaining property by deception, so it is now more complicated.

Question 29

Criticism with ‘theft of gifts’

Answer 29

Hinks proves that it is possible for the defendant to be charged with theft even if the property was given to them. This seems strange.

Question 30

What is the problem of conflict between civil and criminal law (hint: gifts)

Answer 30

the civil law on gifts states that once property has been transferred from one owner to another, then it becomes the recipient’s property. Lord Hobhouse stated this to be the case in Hinks. In other words, how could it also be a criminal matter?

Question 31

What is the problem with relying on dishonesty to prove theft?

Answer 31

Finding proof of dishonesty can be difficult

Question 32

Why is there a need of clarity in the law of theft?

Answer 32

Need for clarity and certainty in the law – ambiguity around dishonesty and the appropriation. For example, by placing items in a shopping basket, honest shoppers are technically appropriating.

Question 33

What is the problem with the Ghosh test?

Answer 33

The jury are first asked to consider whether what was done was dishonest.

They are then asked whether they believe the defendant realised what they were doing was dishonest by those standards?

The problem with Ghosh is that if the jury believe the answer to the first question is ‘no’, then they can find the defendant not guilty even if the defendant himself DID know it was dishonest!

Question 34

kv

Answer 34

b

Question 35

R v Zerei (2012) - problem with permanent deprivation

Answer 35

the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction as the original trial judge had given the impression to the jury that forcible taking was enough to show an intention to permanently deprive and had failed to deal with the fact that D had abandoned the car, undamaged, not far away.

This is even though he threatened V at knife point

Question 36

What is the definition of Robbery (s 8)?

Answer 36

A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force

Question 37

What is the Actus Reus of robbery?

Answer 37

1. theft
2. force, or putting or seeking to put anybody in fear of force. (The force must be immediately at the start or at any time during the theft)

Question 38

What is the Mens Rea of robbery?

Answer 38

1. the mens rea to steal
2. intended to use force in doing so.

Question 39

Can it be a robbery if there is no theft (‘completed theft’)?

Answer 39

Nope (R v Zerei 2012) (R v Waters 2015)

Question 40

Burglary s(9)

Answer 40

S 9(1)(a)
Enters a building, or part of a building as a trespasser.
With intent to:
- Steal
- Inflict grievous bodily harm - Do unlawful damage
S 9(1)(b)
Enters a building, or part of a building as a trespasser.
- Steals, or attempts to steal, or
- Inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm