theft Flashcards
act
s1 theft act
def
a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanetly deprive
Ar
appropriation
property
belonging to another
mr
dishonestly
intent permanently deprive
appropriation
s 3(1)
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
if the d has done something with the property which only the owner has the right to do then he has appropriated
lawrence
taxi driver takes more money
can occur when owner has consented
morris
switched labels
An assumption of ANY of the rights of the owner was sufficient
for an appropriation to occur the D had to act outside the implied consent of the owner or do some overt act that was inconsistent with the owner’s rights.
darroux
It was alleged that she had submitted inflated claims for overtime and claims for payment in lieu of holiday taken
She appealed against her conviction for theft, arguing that she had not appropriated the property as she had had no control over the bank account.
Her conviction for theft was quashed on the basis that the prosecution could not show appropriation. She had had no control over the bank account and therefore had not assumed any of the owner’s rights. The court further held that she should properly have been charged with fraud;
gomez
leading authority
The description of appropriation in Morris was tantamount to a ‘misappropriation’, introducing into the word the mental state of both owner and accused. I regard the word ‘appropriation’ in isolation as being an objective description of the act done irrespective of the mental state of either the owner or the accused
Dissenting: Lord Lowry said that the natural meaning of ‘appropriation’ was to take for oneself or to treat as one’s own, especially without authority
hinks
Gomez therefore gives effect to section 3(1) of the Act by treating “appropriation” as a neutral word comprehending “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner”. If the law is as held in Gomez, it destroys the argument advanced on the present appeal, namely that an indefeasible gift of property cannot amount to an appropriation.
can appropriate a valid gift
property
s4 (1)
Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
real property - buildings, land
personal property - tangiable property
oxford v moss
couldnt steal test asnwers
low v blease
electricity couldnt be appropriated
clinton v cahill
heat could not be appropriated
kelly and lindsy
dead body parts
law there is no property in a corpse and therefore strictly speaking it cannot be stolen. However body parts …
…parts of a corpse are capable of being property
mistake
When property has been acquired by mistake, the courts will sometimes decide whether or not D has stolen property belonging to another according to the transfer of proprietary rights under civil law
belonging to another
s 5(1)
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest, whether it be a right of ownership, possession or equitable right
turner
– took back the car from the garage before paying. The owner of property can be convicted of its theft if someone else has possession or control of it at the time
woodman
D removed some scrap metal from a disused factory belonging to English China Clays. They had sold all the scrap metal to a company which had left some inaccessible items on the premises. The factory had then been surrounded by a barbed wire fence to exclude trespassers. D was convicted of theft and appealed on the ground that he had not removed the metal from anyone’s possession or control. It was held that D had committed theft.
Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142
– a trespasser on a golf course was guilty of stealing lost golf balls from the secretary and club members.
s 5 (2)
trusts
s5(3)
obligation to treat property in a particular way
wain
raised money for charity, transferred it into his account and spent it. By virtue of section 5(3), the appellant was plainly under an obligation to retain, if not the actual bank notes and coins, at least their proceeds.
s 5(4)
mistake
AGR
overpaid salary by mistake. Under obligation to pay back
dishonesty
s 2(1)
Not dishonest if
D has
A. Belief in legal right
B. Belief in owner’s consent
C. Belief that owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps
s2 (1)a
belief in right
must be honest but doesnt need to be right or reasonable
small
taken car believed to be abandoned. Only looking for honest and genuine belief
forrester
broke into house had previously been a tenant and took money that was owed to them. Belief in moral right not enough, needs to be belief in a legal right
s 2(1)(b)
belief in consent
holden
believed had permission
s 2(1)(c)
taking reasonjable steps
feely
question of fact for jury
ghosh
consultant in hospital, claimed fees for an operation he didn’t perform but argued wasn’t dishonest as was owed same amount of money for consultancy work he had done before.
Not a purely objective test – dishonesty is something in the mind of the accused. If the mind of the accused is honest, it cannot be deemed dishonest merely because members of the jury would regard it as dishonest to embark on that course of conduct
ivey
is cheating dishonest
1. determine the defendant’s actual state of mind
2. consider whether by the standards of ordinary people the behaviour of D should be regarded as dishonest
intention to permanetly deprive
s6(1)
Need not be an actual permanent deprivation
An unauthorised borrowing or intention to return it at some point does not normally constitute an intention to permanently deprive
An intention to permanently deprive is established if D does not intend to return the specific property: Velumyl[1989] Crim LR 229
s6 (1)
- An intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of
- A borrowing or lending for a period or in circumstances that amounts to an outright taking or disposal
lloyd
– only refer to section 6 when specific facts of case make it necessary
films from cinema
returned
dispose of
more than just using
cahill
An intention to use the thing as one’s own is not enough… ‘dispose of’ is not used in the sense in which a general might dispose of his forces but rather the general meaning given by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: ‘To deal with definitely; to get rid of; to get done with, finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell
marshall
taking train tickets from people who had finished using them and then selling them. Returning tickets to london underground through third party– argument rejected as London underground hold the only right to sell ticket .
raphael
– robbed of car, offered to give back for £5,000 then abandonded car when police were involved. treating the car as it was theirs to dispose of.
dpp v j
snatched headphones, snapped in half then retuned immediately. Treated the headphones as their own to dispose of.
risking loss
where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the others authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.
easom
conditional intent
Picked up handbag in cinema, picked it up decided there was nothing worth stealing and put it back. Had no intention to permanently deprive victim of any of the items that were actually in the bag.
