theft Flashcards
background information
s1(1) theft act 1968- ‘dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it’
s7- max penalty 7yrs, triable offence either way
appropriation
s3(1) ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation and this includes where he has come by the property without stealing it, any later assumptions of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner’
r v pitham and hehl 1977
d sold furniture belonging to another person
held to be appropriation at the point when d offered to sell furniture
did not matter if furniture was removed from house or not even if owner had never been deprived of the property the d had appropriated it by assuming the rights of the owner and offering to sell it
morris 1983
no requirement that all the rights of an owner are assumed one right is sufficient
d switched the price labels of two items and then put the item with the lower price ticket in his shopping basket
took them to the till but was arressted before went through the checkout
found guilty- assumption of one of the rights of the owner is enough- right to put a value on their property
lawrence v mpc
d london cab driver
italian student hwo spoke very little english showed address to d
jounrey should have cost 50p
d told it was expensive
student offered £1 but was not enough
student opened wallet and allowed d to help himself to another £6
d argued student had consented to him taking the money so was not appropriation
it was still appropriation
dpp v gomez
d assistant manager of shop
persuaded manager to sell electrical goods worht over 17,000 to accomplice and to accept payment by two cheques
d told manager cheques were as good as cash, cheques stolen and were of no value
d charged and convicted of theft of the goods
appropriation took place
r v hinks
d 38yo woman befriended naive man with low iq
mentally capable of udnerstanding concept of ownershup and making valid gift
over 8mths d accompanied man to building society where he withdrew her money of 60,000 in total
money deposited into d account
man gave d tv as well
judge asked jury to consider whether the man was so mentally incapable that d herself realised that ordinary and decent people would consider it dishonest to accept these gifts
property background info
s4 of theft act 1968- ‘property includes money and all other property real or personal including things in action and other intangible property’
money- coins and banknotes
personal property- anything that can be moved no matter how big or small
real property- buildings and land
things in action- right enforced by another person by an action in law eg bank account
intangible property- refers to rights which have no physical rpoperty but can be stolen
plants not property wild, picking wild flowers not theft unless sold for reward or commercial use
wild creatures not property but offence if stolen from zoo
electricity cant be stolen covered by a different offence
belong to another
s5- possession or control or any propriety interest in the property is sufficient
turner no.2- turner left car at garage to be repaired, almost finished he used spare key to take car during night without paying for reapirs, garage in control and possession of the car at the time, guilty of stealing his own car
woodman- company sold scrap metal on its site to another comapny, small amount left on the site by company who had bought it, woodman broke into site and stole remaining scrap metal, didnt know the remaining scrap was there it was on their site so they ere in control of it, convicted of theft
3 excpetions
property received under obligation
property received by anothers mistake
trust property where trustee can steal it
hall 1972
travel agent who received deposits from clients for flights to america
paid deposits into firms general account but never organised tickets and unable to return money
convicted of theft but was quahsed on appeal
was not under obligation to deal with it in particular way
klineburg and marsden 1999
d sold timeshare apartments in lanzarote in customers in england
customer paid purchase price on udnerstanding the money would be held by independent trust company until apartment ready for purchaser to occupy
over 500,000 paid to d company but only 233 was actually paid into trust companys account
d guilty of theft clear they were under obligation to purchasers to retain and deal with that propert or proceeds in particular way and they hadnt
davidge v burnett
d shared flat with mates at uni
gave her money to pay gas bills
instead used money to buy chirstmas presents for family
guilty of theft- obligation
ag reference no1
d salary [aid into account by bank transfer
overpaid 74.74
ruled d under obligation to make restoration and if there was dishonest intent not to make restoration then all elemetns of theft present
what does dishonesty mean
they have the right in law to deprive the other of it on behalf of themselves or a third party
they would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
IVEY test
