Theft Flashcards
Where is theft defined ? What is the definition?
what type of offence is it?
Sentence?
Criticism?
Why is the theft act effective?
Law commission and Professor Griew?
Type of law?
Theft is defined under S.1 theft act ‘a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it’.
Triable either way offence.
Maximum sentence of 7 years.
criticism - not distinguish between minor and serious form of theft leading to disproportionate punishments.
Most effective legal drafting post war era still in tact after 50 years.
Law commission and Professor Griews report - ‘dishonesty’ contains arguments around this law. Technical law - contained in parliament. Judges interpret wording very specific questioning fairness and consistency
Whats the first element of actus reus for theft?
Case?
What situations does it cover?
appropriation - S.3(1) - ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner, assuming some of all their rights at one point in time’.
R v Morris - appropriation of one right is sufficient. criticised for going beyond what parliament intended of the rights of the owner.
Covers situations - not steal but assumes the rights of the owner by refusing to return it.
What if the victim consents? Case?
Evaluation point? Established and followed?
Protection to who? Case?
Can a gift be an appropriation? Lord?
Appropriation can still take place if victim consent - Lawrence v MPC - taxi driver took money from a students wallet even though he consented.
seems ludicrous but protects the vulnerable. Established by Viscount but followed in Gomez. Offer sufficient protection of vulnerable people as seen in Hinks - took advantage of a man of low intelligence by convincing him to gift £300 a day as a gift.
Gifts - conflict with civil law. Lord Hobhouse - Hanks - It was impossible for a gift to be an appropriation in civil law as soon as the owner transfers the gift to the donee, becomes the property of the donee. Not appropriating creating confusion.
What did Janet Loveless say?
What did Professor smith say?
Whats undermined?
When does an appropriation need to occur? Case?
Appropriation should be the same as what? Cases?
‘appropriation has more or less vanished from sight’. Area ceased to be relevant.
Smith - application of wide definition creates easy convictions and unfair rulings. essential to consider all elements of theft are needed for a conviction undermining as appropriation is the first.
Must occur at one point In time - inconsistency and confusion - Atakpu.
Appropriation should be the same as robbery, in a continuing act as ruled in Hale and Lockley.
Whats the second element of theft?
What does it further establish?
What is money? Followed by what?
Case? Departs from where?
Property - S.4 (1) - ‘money and all other property real or personal including things in action and other intangible property.
Further establishes - things that can be stolen.
Money - named item followed by personal property involving all moveable items like jewellery, clothes and cars, even dead body parts - Kelly and Lindsay.
Departs from civil law, required to secure conviction and address immorality of selling body parts.
What is intangible property?
What are things in action?
Case?
what cant be stolen?
What does the Act set out?
Intangible property that does not exist in a physical sense like copyrights and patents can be stolen.
‘ Thing in action’ - describe property that does not exits in a physical sense but provides owner with legally enforceable rights including investments, shares etc..
Oxford v Moss - information cant be stolen. Exam questions not property.
S.4(3) and (4) things that cant be stolen - mushrooms, flowers, fruit, foliage on wild land. Not theft unless reward, sale or other commercial purposes.
Act sets out detailed rules on when land, animals, plants can and cant be stolen. Holly/mistletoe for home decoration not theft but for reward may be theft. Confusion.
What’s the final element of actus reus?
what does it include?
steal own property? case?
similar cases?
legally obtained?
‘belonging to another’ - owns the property and where they have possession or control over it or where they have propriety rights or interest.
Property belonging to someone under civil law and covers possession without rights of ownership.
steal own property - turner - drove car away from garage without paying. seems unfair but justification and requirement for this rule.
Marshall, Coombes and eren.
Legally obtained - use in certain ways, depends on facts - hall.
whats the final element of belonging to another?
case? justified in what case?
criticism, gambling contracts?
main criticism? cases?
Passed by mistake? - belonging to regional owner, once realise mistake and fail to return, there is a theft. Failure to return must be deliberate (AG REF). Justifiable but Gilks - inconsistent due to gap in law regarding gambling contracts, not required to pay back money he mistakenly obtained. inconsistently applied and may prove unfair.
Criticism - ambiguities and challenges in determining ownership - dyke and Munroe - released on technicality as to whom collection money belonged to, suitable to convict if property belonged to unknown persons.
Where is the mens rea defined?
what is the definition?
Borrowing? Without permission ?
conditional intent? case?
S.6 theft act.
‘intention to permanently deprive, regardless of whether the other is deprived of the property. Intend to treat the thing as his own.
Borrowing may fall under if the borrowing is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Borrowing without permission without intention to permanently deprive is not theft but other offences for taking without consent.
conditional intent is sufficient where d examines property to see whether it worth stealing, then returns, not theft (easom).
problem with permanent?
What would this ensure?
further amends what?
resolved in what case?
Evaluation?
replace with temporary to ensure cases like easom amount to theft. Consistency within law of burglary where courts have ruled that conditional intent to steal if sufficient under s.9 1a.
amends conflict with other principles improving consistency, coherence and effectiveness of legal system is enforced.
resolved in AG Ref - conditional intent can amount to attempted theft where nothing is physically taken. improves fairness but unfair to punish when nothing was taken.
Why is S.6 controversial? case?
contradicting case?
what do critics argue? what are the rulings viewed as?
covering temporary borrowing situations as seen in Lloyd where temporary deprivation did not constitute theft if borrowed property was returned before ‘the goodness, the virtue, practical value..has gone out of the article’.
velumyl case - conviction for temporary borrowing money, raising questions about the necessity of this element.
this intent is irrelevant and there Is a redundancy considering offences of taking vehicles without consent - technicalities, prompting debate on whether excessive.
why is dishonesty debated ?
what cant amount to dishonesty /
what does s.2 further state about appropriation?
case?
dishonestly not defined within the act yet. examples of what cant amount to dishonesty
- right to deprive other of it
- would have consent
- unable to discover the other by taking reasonable steps.
S.2 - appropriation may be dishonest not with standing that D is willing to pay for the property. Subjective. Not apply? jury choose common law test under Ivey v genting casino.
before the theft act, theft was what? codified? case?
criticism of this?
replaced?
where did it come from - 2 stage test?
problem?
Law commission? case?
common law offence partially codified in the Larceny act 1916 - steal without the consent of the owner fraudulently (meaning intentionally and deliberately without mistake - Williams).
Fraudulently was difficult for a juror to understand and so Criminal law revision committee replaced with dishonestly. led to many problems.
Dishonesty test came from Gosh.
1 - was the defendants behaviour dishonest by the standards of the honest reasonable person
2 - did they elapse that their behaviour was dishonest by this standard
Problematic for juries to consider and D could show they did not believe their actions to be dishonest then mens rea could not be satisfied.
2002 law commission - there is some evidence that peoples moral standards are surprisingly varied supported in DPP v Gohill where the ordinary reasonable person was started to be a mythical concept.
What could have happened if dishonest was defined?
When was the test questioned.case?
what were they waiting for” case?
why is this case criticised? what does this risk?
Whats unfair?
If theft act originally explained dishonest problems would not have arisen.
test was questioned in civil law - Ivey v Genting, favouring objective test. Only obiter, law left uncertain, waiting for confirmation of a binding precedent.Arose in barton and booth confirming Ivey.
Barton and booth - circular test while assuming moral consistency among jurors . this risks inconsistency and unpredictability - reflect diversity of moral outlooks and experience.
risk being convicted of a crime for behaviour which they did not believe to be dishonest, unfair and may breach Article 7. Flawed, needs reform.
Whats a further criticism of the theft act? Outdated?
complex and ambiguous language leading to difficulties in interpretation and inconsistent judicial decisions.
Outdated terms like dishonest and appropriation fail to address modern forms of theft like cybercrime.
