theft Flashcards
where can the law of theft be found?
s1-7 of the Theft Act 1968
what do all the sections of the theft act say?
- Section 1 – definition
- Section 2 – Dishonestly
- Section 3 – Appropriates
- Section 4 – Property
- Section 5 – Belonging to another
- Section 6 – With the intention to permanently deprive the other of it
what does section 7 of the theft act say?
maximum sentence for theft is 7 years imprisonment
what does section 1 of the theft act say?
a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it
what is the actus reus of theft?
approprating property belonging to another
what is the mens rea of theft?
dishonesty with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it
what is section 3 of the theft act?
- appropriation
- a person appropriates property when he assumes the rights of a true owner
r v morris (theft)
- D substituted higher price tags for lower ones on supermarket items.
- D was convicted of theft as he had ASSUMED THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER
- only the owner has the right to change the labels.
section 3
atakpu and abrahams
- D’s planned to hire expensive cars abroad (in Brussels) and bring them to England to be sold.
- it was held that the theft was not a continuing act as the appropriation occurred abroad - not guilty
section 3
lawrence v mpc
- a taxi driver took £7 from the wallet of an Italian student for a fare only worth £1.
- the HOL decided that there could be an appropriation ‘ even though the owner had permitted or consented to the property being taken’.
section 3
pitham v hehl
- D sold furniture belonging to another person.
- it was held to be an APPROPRIATION as they had ASSUMED THE RIGHT OF THE OWNER and were convicted.
- there was no need for the furniture to be removed – the act of trying to sell it will suffice.
section 3
can the right to destroy be considered appropriation?
this is also an owner’s right and so theft if carried out by
another.
r v hinks
con-woman conned vulnerable man with low IQ out of thousands of pounds and his TV - legally under civil law she was now the legal owner
Could she be guilty of appropriating her own property? – technically no…. BUT
Court held that yes she could be and she was convicted!
section 3
what does section 4 of the theft act concern?
property
section 4 (1) of the theft act
money and all other property, real and personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
oxford v moss
- D acquired the proof of an examination paper intending to read the contents and return it.
- issue – whether the information in the exam paper amounts to property.
- it was held that it was not property as per s.4(1) therefore D was acquitted.
section 4
sections 4(3) and 4(4) of the theft act
- 4(3)- Wild Flowers - ‘ Thus you can pick mushrooms and flowers growing wild- provided not done for commercial purposes’.
- 4(4)- Animals - ‘ Not theft if you capture a wild animal which has not been tamed or reduced to captivity’.
what does section 5 of the theft act concern?
belonging to another
section 5(1) of the theft act
possession or control or having in the property any proprietary right or interest
r v turner
- D took his car in to a service station for repairs.
- when he went to pick it up he saw that the car was left outside with the key in.
- he took the car without paying for the repairs.
- it was held that D was liable for theft of his own car since the car was regarded as belonging to the service station as they were in possession and control of it.
“making off without payment” = new offence. section 5(1)
section 5(3) of the theft act
holding money for a particular purpose
davidge v bunnett
- D was given money by her flat mates to pay the gas bill.
- D instead used the money to by Christmas presents.
- D was held to be guilty of theft.
holding money for a particular purpose. section 5(3)
section 5(4) of the theft act
receiving property by mistake
If D fails to return property to the rightful owner, D will be depriving the
owner of it.
ag’s reference
(theft)
- the defendant, a police woman, received an overpayment in her wages by mistake.
- She had noticed that she had received more than she was entitled to but did not say anything to her employer. She did not withdraw any of the money from her bank account.
- CoA held: It was possible for a theft conviction to arise where the defendant had not withdrawn the money. There was a legal obligation to return the money received by mistake.
section 5(4)
what does section 2 of the theft act concern?
dishonesty
what is the basic test used for dishonesty?
ghosh test
what is the ghosh test?
Must be satisfied of BOTH the following questions;
- would the ordinary, honest person consider it dishonest?
- did D consider it to be dishonest?
test for dishonesty, for the jury to decide
what case changed the ghosh test?
r v booth
what part only needs to be applied of the ghosh test?
only need to apply 1st part of the ghosh test (ordinary, honest person)
r v booth confirmed this
secton 2(1)(a) of the theft act
- legal right (Holden)
- you are not to be regarded as dishonest if you appropriate property believing that you IN LAW have the right to deprive the other of it.
reasonable belief not necessary just a genuine belief required
holden (1991)
- D had taken tyres from his employer claiming others had taken them with permission.
- D was not convicted as D had an honest belief in legal right.
secton 2(1)(b) of the theft act
you will not be considered as dishonest if you take property believing that the other would consent to it.
secton 2(1)(c) of the theft act
you will not be considered as dishonest if you take property believing that the person to whom it belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
this helps protect the ‘finder’ of property - as in small (1988)
r v small
- D saw a car for two weeks parked at an angle on a corner of a road, with the doors unlocked and keys in the ignition. One tyre was flat, as was the battery. The petrol tank was empty and the windscreen wipers did not work.
- D thought it was abandoned property and so he could take it.
- Not guilty – could not track owner through reasonable steps so was not dishonest
ivey v genting casinos
The appeal was brought by top poker player Phil Ivey, who had won £7.7mil in 2012. The casino claimed Ivey was not entitled to the pay-out as he used a technique called ‘edge-sorting’, which they considered to be cheating.
Ivey stated he did not consider ‘edge-sorting’ to be cheating and
therefore, the subjective limb of Ghosh could not be fulfilled.
‘the second leg of the test in Ghosh does not correctly represent the law and
directions based upon it ought no longer to be given’
issues were whether dishonesty was an essential element of cheating
what does section 6 of the theft act concern?
intention to permanently deprive the other of it
r v velumyl
- appellant took money from the company’s safe and claimed that he intended to return it after the weekend.
- held: unless he intended to pay back the exact notes and coins he had the intention to permanently deprive the company of the money taken.
section 6
dpp v lavender
- D removed some doors from a council property that was due for demolition. he installed the doors in his girlfriend’s flat which was also owned by the council.
- Held: he did have the intention to permanently deprive under s.6(1) as he treated the doors as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights.
section 6
borrowing and lending under s6 of theft act
Borrowing is not intention to permanently deprive unless it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
r v lloyd
- A cinema projectionist gave D a film to make an illegal copy. D then returned the film.
- The conviction for theft was quashed as there was no intention to permanently deprive and the film was returned in its original state.
