Theft Flashcards
How is theft defined under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968?
Theft is defined as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
What constitutes the actus reus of theft according to the Theft Act 1968?
The actus reus involves appropriation, property, and belonging to another.
What are the components of the mens rea in theft?
The mens rea consists of dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive.
How is appropriation defined and interpreted in case law?(What section of the act defines this + how is this defined in the case law?)
(What three cases?)
-Appropriation is an act which assumes at least one of the owner’s rights, for example; selling, lending, using and consuming.
-Gardner Academic - appropriation is too wide).
Section 3 elaborates on appropriation, with cases like Lawrence(Taxi driver takes more money than is required for the trip), Morris (Switches labels before going to counter), and Gomez(stolen cheques to mislead shop manager) highlighting the assumption of the rights of an owner.
What is considered property under Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968?
(What cases explored this further?)
Property is defined broadly as money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property, including tangible and intangible items, with nuances explored in R v Kohn (included intagible such as things in action i.e., bank balance/bond) and
R v Preddy(which included obtaining a money transfer by deception.)
How is the concept of “belonging to another” refined through case law?
(Which key case + section of the Act?)
Section 5 - outlines as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).
cases like R v Turner (No. 2) address the concept of “belonging to another” that it must belong to another at the time of appropriation.
How has the interpretation of dishonesty evolved in legal standards?
The interpretation shifted from the Gillks test (Did D believe standards to be dishonest = Subjective)
Feely test(Dishonest by standards of reasonable and honest people) = Objective - C; Can the jury be honest themselve.
Ghosh (Rejects feely - asks if what was done was dishonest according to standards of reasonable + honest people - then asks did the person realise, reasonable and honest people would regard this as dishonest hybrid objective + subjective)
to the Ivey and Barton approach = modifies part 2 of Ghosh, focusing on the defendant’s knowledge or belief and whether the conduct is dishonest by ordinary standards. (Not did the defendant himself realise this unlike Ghosh)
What does Section 6 say about the intention to permanently deprive?
What case law?
It elaborates that a person will be treated as having the necessary intention to permanently deprive if they treat the property as their own regardless of the rights of the owners.
with R v Lloyd(Which showcased that borrowing does not outright amount to taking or disposal) providing insight into what constitutes treating property as one’s own to dispose of.
What are the debates surrounding the transition from the Ghosh test to the Ivey test?
(=Which academics + what do they stress regarding implications?)
Scholars like Ormerod, Laird, and Dyson have discussed its implications for future dishonesty assessments.
How is the broad interpretation of appropriation, especially in R v Hinks, viewed in academic circles?
In R v Hinks - the acquisition of an indefeasible title to property was established as capable of amounting to an appropriation
This has been criticized by defended(Simester and J Beatson), raising questions about the overlap between theft and fraud.(This is because the actus reus is soo broad it can include almost any action = impractical and undermines the communicative aspect of criminal law which has a hierarchical distinction between the level of moral wrongness for particular offences ).
Defended by Practitioners = More practical.
What are some proposed directions for reforming theft law?
What does JC Smith argue about theft?
Tamblyn?
- N Tamblyn emphasise adapting theft to contemporary challenges, i.e., digital property + consent issues.
-C; Consent is not currently fundamental to theft - JC Smith
+ Defence of honest belief of right to property or consent.
-Deception - overlaps with fraud - clashes with communicative duty of Criminal law distinguishing moral issues.
How has the Law Commission contributed to discussions on theft law reform?
The Law Commission has suggested reforms to address ambiguities and inefficiencies within the framework.
Overlap between theft and fraud regarding ‘deception’.
