theft Flashcards
r v morris
FACTS
d switched labels in a supermarket to obtain a lower price one of the ds was caught before he paid
r v morris
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
there doesn’t need to be an appropriation of all the rights of an owner. The appropriation took place when there was a negative adverse interference
r v gomez
FACTS
d worked in a shop and conspired with a person who came in and used fake cheques t buy electrical goods. D convinced the store manager to accept these cheques
r v gomez
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
d argues property was given by managers consent but courts said if there is consent and d is dishonest to get it, there is still and appropriation
r v hinks
FACTS
d, a young mother, befriended a 58yr old man called john who had been left money by his father and he was naïve, gullible and of limited intelligence. over 7 months d influenced and manipulated him into withdrawing £60,000 to her account
r v hinks
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
HofL said even though it was a gift there as still and appropriation - would an ordinary member of the public see it as dishonest for theft
oxford v moss
FACTS
d was a student of engineering and took an exam paper with the intention of returning it and had the intention of using the paper to cheat
oxford v moss
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
the confidential information contained in the paper didnt amount to intangible property for the purposes of the theft act 1968
r v smith
FACTS
smith arranged to meet jordan in order to buy some heroin from him. When jordan arrived at the meeting point the other appellants emerged from an alleyway to attack jordan. Jordan handed over the heroin after being attacked
r v turner
FACTS
d took his car to the garage the car was completed and the car was left on the road by the garage. D said he would collect it and pay for it the4 next day. instead he took it from the road without paying for it
ricketts v basildon
FACTS
d took a bag of clothes from outside a charity shop so he could sell them at a car boot sale
ricketts v basildon
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
the goods outside belonged to the person who donated them until the charity took possesion of it.
williams v phillips
FACTS
a householder put refuse out for collection by the local authority refuse workers. They stole some of the propety
williams v phillips
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
it still belongs to the people who put them there
davidge v bennett
FACTS
D received cheques from her flat mates which where to pay for the communal gas bill. D spent it on Christmas presents and let the house without paying the gas bill