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