Theft Flashcards
definition
s1 theft act 1968
dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive
actus reus part 1
s3 appropriation- assuming the rights of the owner
an appropriation is when D acts as though the item is theirs
(Morris) (Gomez)
(Morris)
any interference with the owners rights is enough, so only have to appropriate one
(Gomez)?
appropriation can only be theft if it was a dishonest appropriation
side rules to part 1 actus reus
(Lawrence)
(Hinks)
Lawrence?
appropriation occurs even when the owner consents to D taking property
Hinks?
even a gift can amount to an appropriation
part 2 actus reus
property s4
property: money, personal, real, intangible
not property: knowledge (oxford & moss), electricity, wild plants/animals
part 3 actus reus
belonging to another s5 (1)
property belongs to someone who has possession or control over it or any right or interest in it
5 side rules to part 3 actus reus
Turner
lost property s5(1)
Basildon
s5(4) AG’s Ref
s5(3) Davidge v Bennett
Turner?
you can steal your own property if you take it and someone else has a right or interest or possession or control over it at the time
s5(3) (Davidge v Bennett)
if you are given money for a particular purpose you have to use it for the purpose it was given
Basildon?
you can’t steal property that is abandoned, to abandon property there must be an intention to abandon property
lost property s5(1)
if you lose property you still have a right or interest in it as the property still legally belongs to you
s5(4) AG’s Ref
if you receive property by mistake then you must return it
men’s rea
dishonesty + intention to permanently deprive
men’s rea-dishonesty
no definition of dishonesty, but 3 negatives where D is not dishonest
3 negatives?
s2(1)(a)- d believes they have a right in law to the property
s2(1)(b)- d believes the owner would consent to them taking the property
s2(1)(c)- d believes the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
dishonesty test
objective test
was d dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest and reasonable people?
confirmed in (Ivey) and (Booth)
intention to permanently deprive s6(1)
where d intends to treat the item as his own regardless of the owners rights
3 side rules to men’s rea
Velumyl
Lloyd
Easom
Velumyl?
even if d intended to replace the property they are still guilty of theft as they would not be able to return the exact property
Lloyd?
borrowing can be theft if it affects the value of the item taken if the intention was to return the item in a changed state so that the ‘goodness, virtue and the value’ had gone out of the item’ then D can be guilty
Easom?
conditional intent
if you only intend to steal if there is something worth stealing, this is NOT an intention to permanently deprive
