theft Flashcards
booklet 15
what is the act for theft
theft act 1968 s.1
definition of theft
'’dishonestly appropriates (taking something) property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”
actus reus
Appropriation
of Property
Belonging to Another Person
mens rea
Dishonesty
Intention to Permanently Deprive the other person of it (ITPD)
appropriation section
This is defined in Section 3 Theft Act 1968
appropriation definition
“Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner”
So this is where you treat something as your own
what does appropriation involve (5)
Taking something and keeping it
Selling it
Destroying or Damaging it
Modifying or Changing it
Lending it to someone else
This does NOT just involve taking something - it is where you treat something as if it is your own
'’There is also no need to touch or handle anything to appropriate it’’
R v McPherson
(placed something somewhere without consent)
6 legal rules for appropriation
Appropriation can be a continuing act but the jury decides when it is complete
Swapping labels in shops is appropriation
If there is no appropriation there is no theft – even if there is intention to steal
Someone who purchases stolen items without knowledge is not guilty
If the owner consents to the appropriation this will not be theft – UNLESS this consent is obtained by deception
There can be appropriation even if something is given as a gift – if there is deception
Appropriation can be a continuing act but the jury decides when it is complete CASE
R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1993)
D’s hired luxury cars in Brussels and Germany with intention to bring them to UK to sell)
Swapping labels in shops is appropriation CASE
R v Morris (1984)
(D changed prices on an item in a supermarket to pay a lower price)
If there is no appropriation there is no theft – even if there is intention to steal CASE
Eddy v Niman 1981
(d was going to steal trolley of items from supermarket then last minute ditched them because he felt bad)
Someone who purchases stolen items without knowledge is not guilty ACT
s.3(2) Theft Act 1968
rule to come out of this (with a CASE)
They will not be guilty of theft – even if they become aware of the fact the items were stolen at a later date (R v Adams)
If the owner consents to the appropriation this will not be theft – UNLESS this consent is obtained by deception CASE
MPC V Lawrence
(D was taxi driver, V was Italian passenger who did not understand UK currency and held his wallet out to D for payment. D took 6 times too much)
There can be appropriation even if something is given as a gift – if there is deception
CASE
R v Hinks 2001
(D cared for an elderly man of limited intelligence who she persuaded to give her gifts totalling £60,000)
what section of the theft act defines property
Section 4 Theft Act 1968
what does property include (5)
Money
Personal Property (e.g. phone, bag etc – anything moveable)
Real Property (e.g. buildings)
Things in action (e.g. money in a bank account, debts)
Intangible Property (things that cannot be seen but can class as property)
what are things in action (inc a case to confirm things classed as things in action)
These are rights over property which can only be claimed by “action” and not by taking possession
e.g. rights under contracts, insurance policies, debts
Includes cheques and overdrafts (confirmed in R v Kohn)
things that are also included as property (6)
Wildflowers, flora and fauna
Wild animals
Body Parts
Confidential Information
Electricity
Corpse
Wildflowers, flora and fauna section
(s.4(3) Theft Act)
wild animals section
(s. 4(4) Theft Act)
body parts case
(R v Kelly and Linsday)
corpse case
(R v Sharpe)
confidential information
(Oxford v Moss)
electricity section
(s.13 Theft Act)
belonging to another section
Section 5 Theft Act 1968
what does bta section include (5)
Another person owning something
Another person having possession or control of something
Wide interpretation of ‘belonging to’ – includes stealing your own property in some situations
Obtaining another persons property by mistake and keeping it
Being given another persons property for a specific reason and using it for something else (under an obligation – s.5(3)) (Davidge v Bunnett)
Wide interpretation of ‘belonging to’ – includes stealing your own property in some situations CASE
(R V Turner)
(D took his car to a garage to be repaired. When he returned to collect it he saw it parked outside and used his spare key to drive it away without paying)
Obtaining another persons property by mistake and keeping it SECTION
(s.5(4)) (AG’s Ref)
(D was a policewoman who was given extra money in her wages (£74) because of an accounting error and did not give the money back, but also didn’t spend it)
Being given another persons property for a specific reason and using it for something else (under an obligation)
(Davidge v Bunnett)
(D was given some money to pay the gas bill by her flat mates. She decided to spend the money on Christmas presents instead)
mens rea- dishonesty
is this defined under the theft act?
no
which section defines what is NOT dishonesty (not rlly specific)
section 2 of the theft act
what does this state (3)
D has the right to deprive the owner of the property
D would have consent of the owner in the circumstances
Person who the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
D has the right to deprive the owner of the property CASE
(R v Robinson 1977)
D would have consent of the owner in the circumstances CASE
(R v Holden 1991)
Person who the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps CASE
R v Small 1988)
Intention the Permanently Deprive (ITPD) SECTION
S.6 (1) Theft Act 1968
Intention the Permanently Deprive (ITPD) definition and CASE to back this
treating the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights
R v Lavender
legal rules (5)
ITPD does not include conditional intent (D will only steal if there is anything is worth stealing)
ITPD includes where D intends to sell or ransom property back to the original owner
ITPD includes an intention to replace with identical property
ITPD includes where D intends to return property but cannot be sure of it’s return
ITPD does not include an intention to just abandon property
ITPD does not include conditional intent (D will only steal if there is anything is worth stealing) CASE
R v Easom 1971
(D picked up a handbag in a cinema, rifled through it, then returned it without taking anything)
ITPD includes where D intends to sell or ransom property back to the original owner CASE
R v Raphael 2008
(Two D’s took V’s car, then called V and told him they would return it if V paid them £500)
ITPD includes an intention to replace with identical property CASE
R v Velumyl 1989
(D was company director who took money from the company safe, saying he intended to return it after the weekend)
ITPD includes where D intends to return property but cannot be sure of it’s return SECTION AND CASE
R v Fernandes 1996 & s.6(2) Theft Act 1968
(D was a banker who invested money from a client but intended to return it)
ITPD does not include an intention to just abandon property CASE
R v Mitchell 2008
(D stole a car to use as a getaway car but then abandoned it a short distance down the road with the doors open and hazard lights on)
