Theft

Question 0

Theft

Appropriation and consent

Answer 0

1. Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
   - appropriation can take place with the consent of the owner.
2. R v Gomez
   - no distinction can be made between consent and authorization
3. R v Hinks
   - an appropriation exists even where the victim consents to the appropriation and civil unlawfulness is not a constituent of the offence of theft

Question 1

Theft - elements

Answer 1

Theft Act 1968, ss 1-7

1. Appropriation
2. Property
3. Belonging to another
4. Dishonestly
5. With intention permanently to deprive

Question 2

Theft

Appropriation other case law

Answer 2

1. R v Morris
   - there need not to be an appropriation of all rights of an owner.
2. R v Atakpu
   Common sense for jury to decide that the appropriation can continue for so long as the thief can sensibly be regarded as in the act of stealing.

Question 3

Theft

Property - TA s4

Answer 3

Oxford v Morris

Confidential information contained in paper do not amount to intangible property for the purpose of the Theft Act 1968

Question 4

Theft

Belonging to another - Theft Act s 5

Answer 4

1. AG Reference (no 2 of 1982)
   Man in total control of company can steal from it.
2. R v Turner
   Taking car from garage without paying amounts to theft, since garage owner is in possession and control of it.
3. R v Hall
   Clients losing deposit after business collapses. Agent has no obligation to deal with money in a specific way.
4. R v Gilks
   Taking money payed out by mistake, does not amount to theft.
5. AG Reference (no 1 of 1985)
   Taking money payed out by mistake does amount to theft

Question 5

Theft - elements

Dishonesty - TA s 2

Answer 5

1. R v Feely
   The intention to replace money taken by D, can rule out dishonesty.
2. R v Gosh
   Test for dishonesty
3. Was conduct dishonest by the standard of reasonable and honest persons?
4. Did D realised that the conduct must be dishonest by those standards?

Question 6

Theft - Elements

Intention to permanently deprive - TA s 6

Answer 6

1. R v Velumyl
   D a company director took money from company with intention to replace it.
   - unless D intended to pay back the same notes and coins he has intention to permanently deprive
2. R v Loyd
   Intention to permanently deprive does not include mere borrowing, except property is being diminished in value.

Question 7

Robbery

TA s 8

Answer 7

1. R v Dawson and James
   Nudging amounts to force. Force has its ordinary meaning.
2. R v Hale
   Tying up victim after property has been stolen. Robbery is continuous act therefore it doesn’t matter whether appropriation is finished.
3. R v Clouden
   Wrenching a shopping bag from grasp without touching person holding it amounts to force on a person.

Question 8

Burglary

TA s 9 - element of trespass

Answer 8

1. R v Collins
   There must be an effective and substantial entry with knowledge or being reckless as to being a trespasser.
2. R v Walkington
   No requirement for physical separation for s.9(1).
3. R v Smith and Jones
   Stealing from father. Appellant exceeded their permission to enter by stealing, thus they are trespasser.

Question 9

Criminal Damage

Criminal Damage Act 1971 s1

Answer 9

1. Morphitis v Salmon
   Scratch on metal bar does not amount to criminal damage. The usefulness or value has to be impaired.
2. R v Denton
   Consent of owner does not need to be honest in order to be valid.
3. R v Ashford and Smith
   It is no lawful excuse to destroy military property to prevent nuclear war.