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)
