Theft Flashcards
Gomez(1993)- amended Morris(1984)
‘The assumption of all the rights of the owner’ - HofL consented that merely touching property was appropriation - can occur with consent (receiving a gift is appropriation) consent not relevant to appropriation
Theft
AR and MR
AR – appropriates s.3, property s.4, belonging to another s.5
MR – dishonesty s.2 and Ghosh test, intention to permanently deprive s.6
Hinks (2001)
Appropriation will occur irrespective of consent (physical act)
s. 4 Property
Money and all other property - tangible and intangible (includes bank balance but NOT dead bodies, electricity or information)
Exceptions s.4(2)
Not capable of stealing land except where he is:
a) a trustee or personal rep ( breach of fid duty)
b) not in possession of the land (remove items forming the land)
Exceptions s. 4(3)
- a person who picks wild mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage from plants growing wild - NOT THEFT
- must not be picked for reward for sale or other commercial purposes- from someone’s garden – commercial damage
Exceptions s.4(4)
- a wild creature that is not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity (or it’s carcass) cannot be stolen
- unless it has been (or is being) reduced into possession by or for another person (and not lost or abandoned)
s.5 Belonging to another
- theft from owner
- not just ownership of the property - can be anyone with possession (physically in possession or making use of) or control:
- can be temporary
- apply to several persons (library book example)
- simultaneous
Bonner (1970)
Where more than one owner can steal jointly owned property if all elements are present
AG’s reference no. 2 (1984), Philppou (1989)
Company assets in theory can also be stolen even if by sole director because company is a separate legal entity
Turner (No2) (1971) - property right or interest
Owner can steal own car when in garage undergoing work - garage has ‘possession or control’
Cochran v Whent (1977)
When eating in a restaurant - food changed state once eaten, cannot be held for theft if you walk out of restaurant
Edwards v Didin
Putting petrol in the car - same as restaurant situation cannot be held for theft because property has passed to be in your possession
Dyke v Munro (2002)
Intention to part with interest in property when put money in charity box
Wood (2002)
Property appears to be abandoned and D takes believing it to be
Hall (1973)
- When property received from or on account of another s.53
- lost money because lousy business man, being incompetent does not warrant for criminal charges
Wain (1995)
If you are collecting on behalf of charity - money passes - does belong to another, sponsorship etc
Holden (1991)
Honesty is subjective - relies on defs honest belief - does not require ‘reasonable grounds’
Ghosh (1982)
-add test of dishonestly
-test hard to explain to the jury; controversial in application
TEST:
-Whether according to the standard of a reasonable and honest person what the def did was dishonest (Feele - amended in Ghosh)
-and whether the def himself realized that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards
– if yes to both then def is dishonest
Valid defence?
-no when def acts on strong moral or social beliefs
Attorney General refs no 1 and 2 of 1979
If def intends permanent deprivation has requisite MR equivalent to ‘outright taking’ even if finds item is empty or nothing of value inside - charge as attempted theft
S 12 taking without consent
Without having consent of owner or other lawful authority he takes any conveyance for his own or another’s use knowing that it has been taken without such authority drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it
S 6 intending permanent deprivation
Issue whether intends permanently to deprive or merely borrowing / using may fulfill if treats the thing as his own to dispose of – ie. damaging or burning or leaving along the way ; but usually only temporary (joyriding or getaway car)
AR and MR of TWOC
AR – without consent or lawful authority as fact takes any conveyance for his own or another’s use and drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it
MR – knowing that do not have owners consent or lawful authority
Bogacki (1973) - ‘taking’
Any movement sufficient including shifting out of the way (ie. moving 12 inches) - does not include sleeping in vehicle
Neal v Gribble (1978)
Horse cannot be conveyance even if with bridle
Conveyance s12 (7) a
Anything constructed or adapted to carry people
Driving
Must be a voluntary act intending to take control and put a car in motion (Blayney v Knight)
Whitaker v Campbell (1983)
The court said that once consent was obtained it was irrelevant how the person had come by it.
Peary (1970)
Even if owner consents to something that wasn’t your intention it still amounts to consent irrelevant of the trickery
McKnight v Davis (1974)
Test – is the use wholly at odds with the owners authority or the loan of the vehicle or the terms of the defs employment?
S 12 a aggravated vehicle taking
Prove full offence of s 12 :
- drove dangerously
- caused accident and someone injured
- damage caused to property
- damage caused to vehicle
Dangerous driving s2 RTA
- Drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place
- way he drives fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and…
- it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver that driving in that way would be dangerous s2a - falling far below the standard
- MR: obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous - also involved the state of the car – count as being driven dangerously
Not guilty circumstances of dangerous driving
- if damage or injury occurs before TWOC
- if not in or on the vehicle
- if not in immediate vicinity when any of it happened
- if vehicle recovered or restored to owner or other lawful possession or authority
S 3 theft act - making off without payment
AR and MR
AR-- Knowing that payment required or expected On the spot Makes off Without paying Dishonestly With intent to avoid payment
MR– no deception required
Knowing expected or required (when enter shop or restaurant)
Dishonestly (Ghosh) not necessarily initially only when make off
Intent to avoid payment = intend never to pay
Brooks (1982)
On the spot - wherever payment is required/due
Assiz (1993)
Can be more than one spot and can be any spot relevant to the circumstances
Things that amount to property
- money (coins, currency, notes)
- real property
- personal property
- things in action (something that cannot be seen but can be enforced by legal action)
Things that DO NOT amount to property
- Land s. 4(2)
- mushrooms, wild flowers, fruit and foliage s.4(3)
- wild creatures s4(4)
- confidential information (Oxford v moss (1979)
- corpses (Kelly 1999)
R v Hinks (2001)
Following Gomez HofL held that receipt of a gift that amounted to a valid transfer of ownership at civil law could still amount to theft if it was dishonestly induced by the defendant
MR of theft (how to establish) first stage before Ghosh test
1) negative definition:
-whether def falls under any of these three situations under s.2
A) he was legally (rather than morally) entitled to take property
B) that the owner would agree to him taking the property if they knew
C) that the owner could not be found by taking reasonable steps
(Must be honestly held but not accurate)
– if any if the negative definitions are satisfied then def not dishonest and not liable for theft if not satisfied go to Ghosh test!
R v Lloyd (1985)
C of A held that borrowing would amount to outright taking only where the property was returned in such a changed state that all it’s goodness and virtue were not gone.
Vincent (2001)
Payment not expected if agreement to postpone payment even if obtained agreement by deception
Troughton v Metropolitan police (1987)
Payment must be one that is legally due
