Theft Flashcards
The Act
Theft Act 1968
Definition
A person is guilty of if he/she dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
S.1 of the Theft Act 1968
Appropriation
S.3 of the TA 1968 ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’
Assumption rights of an owner
R v Pitham v Hehl
Just needs to be one right
R v Morris
Genuine consent
Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police
Must be genuine consent, can’t be based on unfactual statements
R v Gomez
Accepting a gift can amount to appropriation
R v Hinks
Later assumption of right
S. 3 (1) of the Theft Act 1968
Property
S. 4 of the Theft Act 1968
Personal property- Body parts classed as personal property
R v Kelly and Lindsay
Things in action/ intangible property- permission to export or transport goods
A-G of Hong Kong v Chan Nai-Keung
Knowledge cannot be stolen
Oxford v Moss
Things which cannot be stolen- wild flowers, fruit, mushrooms
S.4 (3) of the TA 1968
Things which cannot be stolen- wild creatures not tamed or kept in captivity
S.4 (4) of the TA 1968
Belonging to another
S.5 of the TA 1968
Does not have to be the legal owner
R v Turner (No.2)
Control of possession
R v Woodman
Belong to another until you take possession
Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates
Proprietary interest- interest in property
R v Webster
Received under obligation
S.5 (3) of the TA 1968
Under obligation
Klineberg and Marsden
Clear obligation
Davidge v Bunnett
Deal with property in specific way
R v Hall
Charity- money paid doesn’t have to be same as coins and notes
R v Wain
Received by mistake- under obligation to make restoration
S.5 (4) of the TA 1968
Under obligation to return
A-G Reference (No.1 of 1983)
Dishonesty
S.2 of the TA 1968
Not dishonest- Has a right in law to deprive the other of it
S.2 (1)(A), R v Robinson
Not dishonest- Would have the others consent if other knew of the appropriation
S.2 (1)(B), R v Holden
Not dishonest- person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
S.2 (1)(C), R v Small
Retreat from Ghosh Test
Ivey v Genting Casinoes
Intention to permanently deprive
S.6 of the TA 1968
When intending to give money back, still lent money which wasn’t his
R v Velumyl
Defendant guilty if they treat property as their own to dispose of it
S. 6 (1) of the TA 1968
Treated property as their own
DPP v Lavender
Borrowing or lending not intention to permanently deprive unless all goodness, virtue and practical value been taken
R v Lloyd
Defendant examines property but doesn’t take anything- not theft
R v Eason
