Theft Flashcards
What type of offence is theft?
Triable either way offence
What is the maximum sentence for theft?
7 years imprisonment (in line S.7 Theft Act 1968)
What is the definition of theft and in what section ?
S.1 Theft Act 1968
the “dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving”
What is S.2 of the Theft Act 1968?
S.2 = Mens Rea “Dishonestly”
What is S.3 of the Theft Act 1968?
S.3= Actus Reus “Appropriation”
What is S.4 of the Theft Act 1968?
S.4=Actus Reus “Property”
What is S.5 of the Theft Act 1968?
S.5=Actus Reus “Belonging to another”
What is S.6 of the Theft Act 1968?
S.6=Mens Rea “Intention to permanently deprive”
What does S.3 of the theft act state about “appropriation”?
“appropriation”= any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
An owner has a “bundle of rights” including the right to:
-take
-damage
-dispose
-Give away
-Sell
any of their property
Appropriation therefore requires D to do something which assumes at least one right of the owner
What happened in the case of Morris?
D switched price labels on two items on the shelf in the supermarket. He then put the lower priced item in his basket and then took it to the checkout. Ds conviction of theft was upheld as the owners right to put a price label on the goods had been assumed.
What is it called when someone does not initially appropriate but then later appropriates (e.g V lent pen to D and D decides to keep it)
“later assumption of a right”
Under S.3, what is confirmed in regards to the consent to appropriation?
Appropriation can still take place even if V consents to to the property being taken. This could occur in situations where V (the owner) thinks D is entitled to take it
What happened in the case of Lawrence?
D (a taxi driver) overcharged V for a journey. V had originally handed £1 to D, who claimed it was not enough. V then opened his wallet and consented D to help himself to money. D appropriated the money as he had deceived the V.
What happened in the case of Hinks?
D was a friend of a man with low intelligence. D on multiply times accompanied V to the bank where he withdrew money and then passed it to her. D claimed they were gifts and that V was aware of what a gift was. HL ruled that even a gift can be appropriated for the purposes of theft. D was convicted.
