Theft Flashcards
Where is theft contained
Theft act 1968 Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
Define theft
Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive
What is the AR of theft
Sections 3, 4 and 5. appropriation of property belonging to another
S.3 - Appropriation
Any assumption by a person of the right of an owner innocently or not, dealing with it as the owner would - R v Morris, R v Pitham and Hehl
S.4 - Property
Includes money and any other property tangible or intangible which does not preclude illegally held property - R v Smith
S.5 - Belonging to another
Property shall be regarded as belonging to another, having possession or control of it or any interest in it - R (on the application of rickets) v Basildon magistrates court
S.5(3)
Clear obligation to deal with property - Davidge v Bennet
S.5(4)
Legal obligation to return property that you receive by mistake - A-G Ref (No1 1983)
What is the mens rea of theft
Sections 2 and 6 - Dishonest intention to permanently deprive
S.2 - Dishonesty
If he appropriates the property in belief that he has in law right to deprive the other of it on behalf of himself or someone else or if he appropriates the property in the belief he would have the owners consent. - Ivey and Genting casino,
S.6 - Intention to permanently deprive
Intention to treat property as their own regardless of the owners right - R v Velumyl, Lavender v DPP
Ivey and Genting casino
Supreme court installed the civil test for dishonesty in theft
R v Pitham and Hehl
Selling was a right of the owner which the D interfered with
R v Morris
Switching price labels and trying to pay the lower price was an appropriation, an interference with the owners rights
R v Smith
Property is defined under s4 as including all tangible property which does not preclude illegally held
R (on the application of rickets) v Basildon Magistrates court
Bags outside the the shop remained property of the donor, while those behind the shop were property of the charity
Davidge v Bennet
The defendant’s act of spending the money on personal items amounted to theft, even though the initial taking was lawful as it was instructed to deal with property
A-G Ref (No1 1983)
Legal obligation to return money received by mistake
R v Velumyl
The court ruled that the defendant had the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property, as he took it with no intention of returning the exact money
Lavender v DPP
D intended to treat doors as his own regardless of councils rights
S.2(1)(A)
R v Holden - Q for jury was if they had or might of had necessary honest belief
S.2(1)(B)
R v Lawrence - Belief / absence of belief that the owner consented to the appropriation is relevant to dishonesty
S.2(1)(C)
R v Small - A belief unreasonably held can be an honest relief
