Theft Flashcards
Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 provides: definition
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
These are all situations in which D is mistaken (‘defences’ as no MR)
Section 2(1)
A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be
regarded as dishonest –
(a) If he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a third person; or
(b) If he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c) (Except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Morgan [1976] AC 182
• Belief in a legal right to deprive: s.2(1)(a)
an honest mistake suffices even if unreasonable.
Terry [2001] EWCA Crim 2979
Belief in a legal right to deprive:
- an honest mistaken suffices; it does also have to be reasonable
Close [1977] Crim LR 107
- D took property from V employer
- D mistakenly believed he could legally do this to recover a debt V owed him
- Held d mistake was honest = no dishonesty
Robinson [1977] Crim LR 173
- D was involved in a fight with V when trying to retrieve money V owed to d wife
- V dropped £5 which d picked up
- D demanded the remainder from V
- D mistakenly believed that he legal right to deprive
- Held: d mistake was honest = no dishonesty
Forrester [1992] Crim LR 793
- D tenancy with V landlord ended
- V did not return £200 deposit
- D felt this was unfair
- D seized items from v HOUSE in belief in a legal right to items
- D could not rely on s.2(1)(a)
- D dishonest – conviction upheld
Flynn [1970] Crim LR 1178.
• Belief that the other would consent to the appropriation: s.2(1)(b)
- D cinema manager took £6 as an advance on his salary
- D not dishonest as he honestly believed he would have had his employer’s consent
Lamb’s Case [1694] 2 East, P. C. London 1803, 664
• Belief that the owner could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps: s.2(1)(c)
cab driver guilty of larceny when he kept property left by passengers in carriage
West [1854] 6 Cox CC 417
a stall keeper was guilty of larceny by finding and keep a purse left on a stall
Wood [1848] 3 Cox CC 277
d not dishonest by keeping a banknote found on open land
Small [1987] Crim LR 777
- A damaged car had been left in the same spot for weeks with keys in ignition
- Put fuel in the car and took it
- D successfully argued he honestly believed the owner would not be traceable by taking reasonable steps
- Conviction quashed
Feely [1973] QB 530
A manager of a betting shop took £30 from safe intending to replace it. the employer had forbidden this practice. ( but conviction quashed due to misdirection)
The Ivey Test- the current law
1) Ascertain, subjectively, the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts.
2) Was D’s conduct (for theft the appropriation) dishonest applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people.
Cahill [1993] Crim LR 142
the intention must be disposed of the property regardless of the V rights and dispose of means to deal with it defiantly to get rid of sell it or break it
