Theft Flashcards
Definition of Theft
S1(1) Theft Act: “a person is guilty of theft if he dishonesty appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”
Definition of Property
S4 Theft Act: “includes includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”
Kohn 1979
Debt such as that represented by a bank account or an overdraft facility can be stolen
Smith 2011
Illegal property is property for the purposes of S4
Low v Blease
Electricity is not property
Oxford v Moss
Confidential information is not property
Kelly v Lindsay
Corpses, body parts and bodily fluids cannot be stolen. However, if the part has had work done to it then it can be stolen. Case - stolen body parts from a museum.
Yearworth v N Bristol NHS Trust
Sperm and organs for transplant can be seen as property
Things defined as “Property” that Cannot be Stolen
Mushrooms/flowers/foliage unless for commercial gain, wild animal not tamed or kept in captivity, land
Belonging to Another Defintion
S5(1) Theft Act: “property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest”
Walker
D sold V video recorder, didn’t work properly so V returned it for repairs. V then sought
legal action.!
• Held D could not be convicted of stealing the recorder, as by taking legal action D had
rescinded the contract for sale, so therefore it could not be established that it belonged to
anyone other than D himself.!
Williams v Phillips
Abandoned property cannot be stolen, but it is rare that no one is in possession or control of the property
Sullivan
Money found on a corpse was regarded as not belonging to anyone
Prosecution does not have to prove who property belongs to, only that it belongs to another
Woodman
Control: D took property from a disused factory site. V, the owner of the site, had sold the property but the purchaser had not taken it. V had erected a fence and notices to discourage trespassers. COA held that even though V had no proprietary interest in the property, because the property was on a site that V controlled, and V had demonstrated this control, D was guilty of theft.
Turner (No 2)
Control: D took his car to a garage for repair. The car was left outside the garage overnight pending collection by D the next day, but D, using a spare set of keys, drove the car away intending not to pay the bill.
It was held that the garage had sufficient control over the car to come within the phrase ‘belonging to another’. Consequently, D was convicted of stealing his own car.
Bronner
Co-owner of property can steal shared property from the other owner
A-G’s Reference (No 2 of 1982)
Directors can steal from their own company
Re Holmes
5(2): trust property belonging to anyone with a right to enforce the trust is capable of theft.
D defrauded V of funds to which V could lay claim.
The money D obtained was money he held on constructive trust and therefore it belonged to the original owner
A-G’s Ref (1 of 1983)
Belonging to another: Mistake
D found she had been overpaid by £74 and did nothing about it!
Held that she had committed theft, the property still belonged to the employer
R v Hall
S5(3) – property received from/ on account of another where D is under legal obligation to retain and deal with it in a particular way is regarded as continuing to belong to the other. travel agent took deposits from clients for holiday bookings and put that money into his general account and did not book their holidays as he said he would. Case failed, because the prosecution couldn’t prove that that money had to go to that booking/ apply it in that particular way
Cocoran v White
D ate a meal in a restaurant. He thought his friend had paid, discovered that he had not paid and left regardless. Court said it was ridiculous to say he had stolen the meal – once you’ve eaten the meal its changed hands, the property has passed and the V no longer has interest (this i now covered by MAKING OFF)
Edward v Ddin
D filled his car and then decided to drive off without paying - petrol passed into the D’s hands and V thus had no interest (now covered by MAKING OFF)
Appropriation Defintion
S3 Theft Act: “Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner”
Briggs
Suggests that appropriation expects a physical act, D must actually do something in relation to the property, except for theft by KEEPING
Morris
D took items from a supermarket shelf and replaced the labels with labels of cheaper goods. Held that the appropriation took place at the point where D infringed a right of V – the label swapping. Lord Roskill observed that the assumption of any of the rights of V by D is sufficient to amount to an appropriation for the purposes of s 3(1) TA 1968.
Effect is that mere preparatory rights become theft
Atakpu
A further appropriation by D cannot amount to theft if he has already stolen the property (stealing hire cars case)
Gomez 1993 (Appropriation)
Approved Atakpu
Approved Lawrence v MPC: appropriation is no longer a wrongful act, merely something that is done, which
combined with MR may become unlawful!
Hinks
HL held there could still be theft where someone becomes the indefeasible owner of the
property!
• Reinforcing the idea of appropriation as a neutral act!
• In considering possible conflicts with the civil law Lord Steyn commented that in a practical
world there will have to be disharmony between the 2 systems, so ultimately not a huge
problem.!
• Benefit of Hinks: A very simple principle which makes it easier for the judge to covey
principles of appropriation to the jury!
Dishonesty Definition
sets standard of dishonesty in 2 ways:
- Partial definition in S.2
- Outside of S.2 the standard must be set by the jury
A-G’s Reference (No. 2 of 1982)
Dishonesty:
S2(1)(a) is to be judged subjectively
Rejected argument that where all the directors of a company agree to an appropriation, the director cannot be dishonest
This is a legal right not a moral one
Feely
The term ‘dishonesty’ is one that is commonly used, and so it can be reasonably expected that jurors can reasonably be expected to apply the current standards of ordinary, decent people in relation to this issue without the help of a judge.
Boggeln v Williams
The fact that D believes he is behaving honestly is “crucial”. It is a factor that the jury can take into account in deciding whether D was acting dishonestly
Ghosh
The Gosh two-stage test for dishonesty:
- Was what D did dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?
- Did D realise that what he did was dishonest by those standards?
Roberts
It is only necessary for a jury to address the Ghosh two-stage test for dishonesty
where D did not realise that his/her conduct may be regarded as dishonest such as in Hyam and Clarke
Wheatley v Commissioner of Police of British Virgin Islands
Theft: Statutory definition
It follows from 1(2) (may be theft without a view to a gain) that D may think that his action confers a benefit on V and still be dishonest
Warner
intention to permanently deprive must be judged at the time of the appropriation
Vinall
An intent formed after an innocent appropriation may lead to conviction if D does further acts of appropriation
McHugh
Decision to return property after stealing it does not negative the intent
Intention to permanently deprive partial definition
- D can be convicted even if he doesn’t mean the other person to loose the property itself if he intends to treat the property as his own to dispose of, regardless of the other’s rights
- Can only be true of a borrower or a lender if the borrowing/lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal
Coffey
Holding goods to ransom and demanding payment as against the owner
Cahill
‘Treating the thing as your own to dispose of’
Anything less than a disposal of goods is not good enough e.g a misuse- must be given its ordinary meaning
Marshall
‘Treating the thing as your own to dispose of’
D sold part of his train ticket. The ticket came back to the owner, the London Underground, but D’s act of selling part of the ticket to a third party constituted alienation/selling by way of disposal
Lavender
‘Treating the thing as your own to dispose of’
Doesn’t appear to fit in with other cases…
D took a door from a council house that was being repaired to replace the door on his girlfriends council property, was convicted for stealing both doors
Was held in this case that ‘treating something as your own to dispose of’ meant simply dealing with it
Lloyd
Borrowing or Lending
Borrowed a film, made a copy and returned it
Court set out test: Borrowing will amount to disposal if when the thing it returned it’s ‘goodness or virtue’ is gone
Did not apply to the film- the practical value to the owner was still the same
Velumyl
Intention to permanently deprive: Substitution
If property is taken, and an equivalent item is returned, there can still be a theft
Robbery Defintion
s8 Theft Act: Aggravated theft.
- D must steal (i.e commit theft)
- In order to do so must use force or seek to put any person in fear of being subject to force
Maximum penalty is life
Robinson
Robbery
D used a knife to threaten V in order to collect a debt
However it was possible that D did have a claim to the money.
If he did there would be no dishonesty, therefore no theft, and no robbery
Burglary Defintion
S9 Theft Act 1968
2 forms:
- D enters building with intent to
a) Steal
b) Inflict GBH
c) Do unlawful damage - D enters building as a trespasser, but then steals/attempts to steal or inflict GBH
Max penalties:
Residential property: 14 years
Commercial property: 10 years
Key Statute: Fraud
Fraud Act 2006 S1
Lawrence V MPC
There is nothing in s1 or s3 that requires appropriation must be
without consent!
Viscount Dillhorne: All questions about states of mind should be considered in the MR
category of dishonesty!
Morris (appropriation and consent)
When an ordinary honest customer takes goods from the shelf they do not appropriate them as the supermarket authorises this !
• It is only through unauthorised interference that you are treating another persons property as your own!
Dishonesty S2 definition: 3 situations where D will not be dishonest
- D takes property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it
2.D believes he would have the owners consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
3 .D appropriated property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
Criticisms of the current law on dishonesty
- Confuses the state of mind with the concept of dishonesty
- Leaves a fundamental question of law to the jury
Can the jury always be trusted to represent the views of ordinary and reasonable people in society? - Leads to more trials of increased length and complexity
- Leads to inconsistent verdicts
Fernandez
Borrowing/ Lending
D can have the necessary intention if he knows he is risking the loss of V’s property
Incorporates element of recklessness
Section: Penalty for theft
S7: Max 7 years
Vinall
Robbery
Took bike by force, and later abandoned it
In order to have robbery, they must have had the intent to permanently deprive the V at the time of the appropriation.
If they formed the intent afterwards and abandoned the bike as a form of a disposal this could not be robbery, as the force was not used to achieve the appropriation.
3 ways of committing fraud
S2 Fraud Act 2006: Fraud by false representation
S3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
S4 Fraud by abuse of position
Fraud: Obtaining Servies
S11 Fraud Act
Remains a result crime but element of deception has been removed
S2 Fraud by False Representation Essential elements
- False representation
- Knowledge the representation is, or might be untrue or misleading
- Dishonesty
- Intention to make a gain for himself or cause loss to another/ expose another to the risk of loss
Gain includes keeping
Loss includes not getting
Solves problems of old law by transforming fraud into a conduct rather than a result crime
Fraud Old Law
Old law consisted of a huge amount of offences which required proof of an operative deception
Proving this ultimate deception was very problematic:
Implying deception from conduct
Proving the deception proved the obtaining
