Theft Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the definition of theft?

A

‘dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is stage one of theft?

A

Appropriation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What does s.3 Theft Act 1968 state appropriation is?

A

Appropriation is ‘any assumption of the rights of the owner’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does the case of Morris state?

A

assuming one right will be sufficient for appropriation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does the case of Gomez state?

A

The other elements of the offence, including mens rea, must be present for it to be theft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does the case of Atakpu state?

A

Appropriation has a beginning and an end- the jury decide when this occurs.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does the cases Gomes; Lawrence state?

A

The D can still be guilty of theft even when the owner consents to the approriation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What does the case of Hinks state?

A

The D can still be guilty when the property is a gift

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What does the case of Pitham and Hehl state?

A

There is no need to show that the D had any physical contact with the property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the second stage of theft?

A

Property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In s.4 Theft Act 1968 how is property defined?

A

‘money and all other property, whether real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

The case of Kelly and Lindsey tells us what?

A

‘personal’ property is all moveable property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does the case of Oxford V Moss tell us?

A

confidential information cannot be stolen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is stage 3 of theft?

A

Belonging To Another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

In s.5(1) Theft Act 1986 how is belonging to another defined?

A

‘having possession of control of it, or having in it any proprietary interest in it’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What does the case of Turner No2 state?

A

Even if the property is owned by the defendant it can belong to another if someone has legal interest in it.

17
Q

What does the case of Webster state?

A

A ‘proprietary interest’ occurs when the D owns the property and has control over it, but he can still steal it if another has a proprietary interest in it.

18
Q

What does the case of Davidge V Bunnet tell us?

A

ownership of property does not transfer to the defendant if there is a clear obligation to deal with the property

19
Q

What does the statute Attorney Generals Reference (No1 of 1983) tell us?

A

If a person receives property by mistake they could be guilty of theft if they have ‘an obligation to make restoration’ and don’t do so

20
Q

What is stage 4 of theft?

A

Dishonesty

21
Q

What are the three situations (s.2(1)(a)-(c) where the D would not be dishonest providing they honestly believed this was the case?

A

s.2(a)- The defendant honestly believes he has the right to deprive the other of it
s.2(b)- The D honestly believes that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew if the appropriation and circumstances
s.2(c)- The D honestly believes that the person whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

22
Q

What does the cases Small; Holden tell us?

A

It does not matter whether this is an unreasonable belief, providing they honestly believed that this was the case

23
Q

What does the case Ivey V Genting casinos Ltd tell us?

A

Id the jury are not satisfied that any of the statutory situations apply the judge will advise them to consider the Ivey Test

24
Q

What is stage 5 of theft?

A

Intention to Permanently Deprive

25
Q

What does the case of Velumyl tell us?

A

IPD is generally straightforward and usually evident from the facts that the D clearly intends to permanently deprive the person of their property

26
Q

S.6 states the D can be regarded as having the IPD in two situations what are they?

A
  1. They treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights
  2. Borrowing or lending may amount to an outright taking if it is for a period of time and in circumstances which make it equivalent to
27
Q

What does the case of Eason tell us?

A

Conditional intent is not sufficient for theft

28
Q

What does the case of lavender tell us?

A

It determined that ‘dispose of’ also included ‘dealing with’ property

29
Q

What does the case of Lloyd tell us?

A

For the borrowing or lending to be considered the same as an outright taking or disposal then the D must keep the property until ‘the goodness, the virtue, the practical value… has gone out of the article’