Theft Flashcards
s.1 TA
Dishonestly appropirating property belonging to another with the intention to permenantly deprive
s.3 TA
Appropiration
“Any assumption of the rights of the owner amounts to appropriation”
R v Morris
D switched price labels in order to pay lower price, however didnt make it to the checkout
Court held guilty the minute he switched the labels as assumed rights of owner
R v Pitham & Hehl
D sold furniture that didnt belong to him
Court held that even if owner was never deprived of property as soon as D offered to sell, he assumed rights and thus guilty
Lawrence v MPC
Italian student with very little english, got taxi ride. journey should have cost 50p. Lawrence offered £1. D said not enough. Lawrence opened wallet to D. D took £6
HoL held taht despite consent there was still appropiration
R v Hinks
D took advantage of V, a man of little intelligence. Over 7months influenced him to giver her £60,000. she wa convicted of theft but argued they were gifts.
CoA upheld, despite consent were still gifts
R v Atakpu & Abrahams 1994
D arrested at Dover Border after hiring cars using false passport in Germany.
CoA quahsed as appropiration had taken place outside Jurisditction of British Courts.
Not new appropriation, only original act continuing
s.4 TA
Property
“Property includes money, and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangliable property”
R v Kelly & Lindsey
Stole body parts from Royal College of Surgeons
Court held corpses and body parts not normally property.
oweing to attributes by virtue of application, it made them property
Guilty
S.4(3) & S.4(4)
NOT PROPERTY
Mushrooms, flowers, fruit and foliage growing wild
Wild creatures, tamed or untamed
Oxford v Moss
Student at oxford university, dishonestly obtained a copy of the exam paper, read it contents and returned it.
Condifential Information did not fall within TA + no intnet to permentantly depreive
s.5 TA
“Property shall be regarded as belonging to another person, who is in possession or control or has a right or interest in it”
R v Turner (No.2) 1971
D stole his own car from garage who had just finsihed repairing it (Without paying)
Court held was guilty of theft as garage was in possession of car
R v Rostron 2003
D stole balls from golf course
Court upheld conviction, as up to jury to decide if golf balls were abandonded or if someone owned them
R v Dyke and Murno 2002
D collected and kept money intended for childrens cancer fund
Was charged with theft from public
COnviction quashed as should have been charged with theft from charities thats where the public intended the money to go
R v Webster 2006
D sold MoD medals that he was given on eBay.
Court held MoD still had propiertary interest in them and he was guilty of theft
s.5(3)
Obligation to use property given in a particulaer way
Davideg v Bunnet 1984
D was given money by her flatmates to pay the gass bill, but she used it to buy christmas presents
Court held there was a clear obligation to deal with money in particular way
Guilty
S.5(4)
Property acquired by mistake
AG Ref No.1 of 1983 (1985)
D failed to retun overpayment which she was paid due to computer error.
The decision to keep monies was concious and thus she was under obligation to return
GUILTY
R v Gilks
D placed bet on a horse race, bookmaker had made mistake and overpaid him
Court found NG as ownership of money had passed to him
s.2 TA
May not be dishonest if:
a. Believes has right in law
b. Believes would have owners consent
c. Believes owner cannot be discovered by reasonable steps
R v Gosh 1982
CoA 2 stage test for dishonesty
1. Dishonest by standards of honest reaonsble man - Objective
2. Did D realise he was dishonest by those standards - Subjective
Ivey v Genting Casinos 2017
D won £7.7million at casino - refused to pay out
D cheated - dishonest
UKSC overruled Gosh Test and removed subjective element
R v Barton and Booth
Upheld UKSC ruling in Ivey, creating Criminal Precedent
s.6 TA
Intention to permentantly Deprive
if intention is to treat the thing as his own and dispose of regardless of owners rights
R v Velumyl 1989
D a company manager took £1,050 from the office safe. D said he was owed money from a friend and was going to replace money
CoA held was guilty unless he intened to return exact notes with same serial number
DPP v Lavender
D took doors from council owned property and used it to replace damaged doors on GF’s council flat. Doors were transfered without permission - Theft
R v Lloyd
Projectionist at cinema gave film to D so did could make illegal copy. he retuend it before next showing,
Conviction quashed on basis of the return - No intent to Permentantly deprieve
R v Eason 1971
D picked up handbag rummaged through contents and replaced handbag without taking anything
Quashed as no evidence of intent to permenantly deprive
