Theft Flashcards
s2-s6
Definition Theft
All sections must be satisfied- S2, S3, S4, S5 & 6
-dishonestly appropriates
- Property belonging to another
- With intention to permanently deprive other of it
S2- S6
s1- definition- charged with stealing
s2- Dishonestly (MR)
s3- Appropriates (AR)
s4- Property (AR)
s5- Belonging to another (AR)
s6- intention to permanently deprive (MR)
All must be proved to be convicted
s3- APPROPRIATION (AR)
“any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation”
- Simple terms- act of taking
A03- Appropriation replaces ‘taking’ from old law prior to act. Appropriation= any rights of owner, rather than taking all rights of owner- wider definition makes it harder for D to prove not guilty. Courts are able to take wide definition of appropriation.
Cases- APPROPRIATION
- R v Vinall- verbal abuse (punched)- HELD conviction raised issues of appropriation, intention- permanently deprive, force- determined whether robbery had occured.
-
R v Pitham and Hehl- sold furniture belonging to another in person’s house. HELD: Appropriation- assuming rights of owner and took place at that point
Assumption doesn’t have to be all rights taken away can be any right taken away -
R v Morris- switched price labels
HELD: theft- owner only has right to put price label- right that had been assumed
Consent to appropriation
-
Lawrence v MPC- D (taxi driver) claimed he hadn’t appropriated an excess amount because the victim offered his wallet
HELD : Still appropriation despite consent- V thought D took something owed to D - R v Gomez- D persuaded manager to accept fee for goods. 2 cheques- knew stolen ( had no value). HELD: there was appropriation consent was irrelevant
**Consent without deception – the problem of gifts
-
R v Hinks
D described self as V’s main carer, befriended a man of low intelligence but significant wealth , each day he would coerce £300 from bank and give to her- lost most of savings
HELD: gift could amount to appropriation- would an ordinary member see D’s actions as dishonest.
A03- Major argument Civil= £60000 + TV= valid gift- in this decision it was seen as irrelevant -
R v Atakpu and Abrahams- Ds hired cars in Germany and Belgium using false driving licences and passports. Quashed convictions because moment
of appropriation = obtained the cars. So the thefts occurred outside English courts.
HELD: Appropriation occurs first time person assumes rights of owner. D assuming right of owner by continuing to drive cars and by bringing them into this country. However, the court did not say that appropriation was a continuing act.
PROPERTY
S4: includes money, all other property, real/ personal including things in action and other intangible property
**LAND **cannot be stolen- **BUT **Things attached to land can be cut from the land and then stolen
HOWEVER- Cut items may still be exempt from being capable of being stolen, such as wild mushrooms
UNLESS- The items are being severed for the purpose of commercial use or are being grown commercially
Cases- Property
Property- personal property covers all movable items
R v Kelly and Lindsay- K made casts of the parts L took for K. HELD: Theft, appealed body parts aren’t property. Body parts were property as they acquired different attributes
Other intangible property- no physical presence- can be stolen e.g electricity
Oxford v Moss- acquired proof of an examination paper, due to sit. HELD confidential information can’t be stolen- knowledge of questions on an examination paper was held no property.
s.5 Belonging to another
Defined as “ Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having **possession or control **of it,/having in it any proprietary right/ interest”
Cases- Belonging to another
Possession/ control
Not limited to owner- stole own car
**R v Turner: **Agreed to pay for repairs but took the car without paying. HELD: Owner can steal their own property if another ownes it.
one can be in possession or control of property even if they are unaware that it is there.
**R v Woodman **- , D took leftover scrap metal from a fenced site with trespass warnings- HELD: Theft even though company unaware
Ricketts- taken bags outside charity shops. HELD goods left remain original owner’s until new owner takes possession
Proprietary interest
R v Webster- sold mistaken duplicate medal . HELD- Theft, Ministry of Defence held a fair interest in the medal
R v Hall- received deposits from customers, deposited the money into the firm’s general account and didn’t arrange tickets. HELD- not under obligation to handle tickets in certain way- no theft
R v K and M-Timeshare payments meant trust placed in the company’s account. HELD- theft- under clear obligation
Davidge v Bunnett - Given money to pay gas bill used for xmas present- HELD- clear obligation theft
**Property received by mistake
AGR no 1-overpayment made by D’s employers into
bank account- HELD theft under obligation to return it
R v Gilks- overpaid for winnings on bet- didn’t return. HELD- no theft- no legal obligation- betting transactions were not enforceable at law
s.2 Dishonestly
-
MR- when D appropriated
property he or she did it dishonestly.
Behaviour which isn’t dishonest:
- has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of him- or herself or of a third person
- he or she would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
- the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
Cases- Dishonestly
What is an unreasonable belief?
R v Small- Took car believed to be abandoned. HELD- quashed question was whether honest belief had been established-owner couldn’t be found.
Right to deprive other from property
R v Holden- Theft of scrap tyres-** HELD**- quashed- not dishonest if genuinely believe they have a legal right to the property
R v Robinson- During fight D kept £5 note fallen from V’s pocket- V’s wife owed £7. HELD- Robbery quashed no theft- honest belief he was entitled to the money
Willing to pay- if D offers to pay for property/ leaves money, their conduct can still be dishonest, as s 2(2) states that willingness to pay doesn’t change dishonesty. This prevents taking property without the owner’s consent.
A03/ Changes in the law of- Dishonesty
notes printed out- google docs
s.6- IPD Cases
R v Velumyl- D took £1050 from office safe, said he would repay when friend paid him back. HELD- Theft IPD company of banknotes, even if planned to replace later.
Dpp v lavender- D took doors from a council property and used them in his girlfriend’s flat. HELD- treating them as his own by moving them without permission.
Borrowing and lending
R v Lloyd- D given film to make illegal copy, returned it in time for next screening. HELD-theft quashed as he did not IPD owners, since film was returned in its original state.
Conditional intent
R v Easom- D searched a handbag in a cinema but returned it without taking anything. HELD- lack of intent to permanently deprive owner
