Theft Flashcards
What is the actus reus of theft?
Appropriation (conduct) of something belonging to another which is capable of being stolen (circumstance).
Oxford v Moss
Mere information is not property.
Low v Blease
Forms of energy, including electricity, are not property but gas and water in a container is.
Can body parts and bodily fluids be owned?
Kelly - a corpse or its body parts may constitute property, usually where it has undergone a lawful application of skill
Yearworth - men own the sperm which they ejaculate
Smith
A thing may be stolen even if ownership or possession of it is illegal
Meredith
If D has a better interest than V, D cannot steal it from V; S.5(1) requires a proprietary interest which the actor is not privileged to infringe
Slowly
An owner may commit theft if he deprives someone who has a lien over the property, such as a seller in possession.
When is a good abandoned? Can abandoned goods be stolen?
Abandonment occurs where the owner gives up physical control and ceases to have intention to possess the item/exclude others from its possession. Williams v Phillips illustrates that courts are reluctant to find that goods have been abandoned since even trash put out for collection is not abandoned.
Abandoned goods cannot be stolen since they are ownerless.
Wain (illustrates which provision?)
If a charity collector keeps the proceeds of his fundraising for himself, he is guilty of theft. Illustrates S.5(3) - if D receives property on account of another and there is a legal obligation to return the property/proceeds to the other, the property will be regarded as belonging to the other
A-G Ref No.1 of 1983 (illustrates which provision? Contrast)
If an employee is overpaid, and dishonestly decides not to repay the sum, she will be guilty of theft under S.5(4) since she has a legal obligation to repay. The property is regarded as belonging to the employer to the extent of the legal obligation to repay.
Contrast Gilks, where since the overpayment was by virtue of a wager the obligation to return was only moral, nor legal.
How do Simester and Sullivan define appropriation based on the current law?
Any act in connection with an item that an owner may exclude others from doing is appropriation
Gomez
An interference with the owner’s rights which is authorized by the owner is still appropriation
Hinks (how did this extend Gomez?)
The very acquisition of indefeasible ownership constitutes appropriation. Extended Gomez because in that case the transfer of title was voided by D’s deception and D’s title was impeachable.
Brooms v Crowther
If D lawfully obtains property, his omission to return it only counts as appropriation if he manifests a decision to treat the property as his own (S.3(1)) and he has a duty to return
Atakpu and Abrahams
Theft is a “finite act with a beginning and an end”, such that there “cannot be successive thefts of the same property by the same D”