Theft Flashcards
Any assumption of any of the owner’s rights amounts to theft
R v Morris
Switching tags for a cheaper price assumes the owner’s right to decide what price to sell his property for
Consent doesn’t negate appropriation
Can’t overcharge
Lawrence v Metropolitan police commissioner
Overcharging cab-driver. Doesn’t matter that money was handed over wilingly
Consent doesn’t negate appropriation
Can’t pay by dud cheque
R v Gomez
Left with the goods with shop owner’s consent but still appropriation
Consent doesn’t negate appropriation
Can’t manipulate vulnerable parties into giving away their money on grounds of deceit
R v Hinks
Can be guilty of theft in receiving gifts
Dishonesty is what ordinary right minded people say it is, subjective to the jury
R v Feely
Took money from employer’s till
Even if the jury decided that right minded ordinary people would consider him dishonest, the defendant may still be innocent if the jury believes that they believed their actions were okay and others would agree
R v Ghosh
Overcharged NHS for operations bc he had been underpaid at other times
Don’t need feely if you can rely on s.2(1)
Belief in a right in law
R v Wood
thought hut was abandoned therefore lacked intent to permanently deprive or appropriate
Don’t need feely if you can rely on s.2(1)
Belief in a right in law and the owner’s consent
R v Bailey
Took some metal from someone to get back what he owed him. Believed that was okay as they had agreed
Can steal funds in a bank account i.e. the ability to sue the bank for the money in the account
R v Kohn
writing cheques to himself from company’s bank account
R v Briggs
Tricked aunt and uncle into paying for a house that was in his name.
No appropriation as the money went straight to the vendor.
Leaving something outside a charity shop does not constitute abandonment allowing for anyone to take it
Ricketts v Basildon
Not abandoned wanted it to go to charity shop so still had some interest in what happened to it.
Similar is assumed for bin-rummaging. Journalists just say they don’t intend to permanently deprive.
Is still theft to take something from someone that doesn’t have lawful ownership of it such as illegal substances
R v Smith
S.5 refers only to possession or control not lawful possession or control
Might be more successful to say he did not appropriate as the owner had no right to the property. May still have failed as the owner drug dealer still has a better right as against the thief drug dealer, though not against a policeman or a member of Government
Can steal your own property if it’s under the control of another
R v Turner stole his car back to avoid paying garage for repairs
Garage had legal possession (dependent on terms of contract)
Making off without payment perhaps better
Ticket touting is theft as don’t have Underground’s permission when recieving used tickets
R v Marshall
Equitable interests in property are sufficient
Att-Gen’s Ref (no1 of 1985)
Selling own drinks instead of pub’s drinks
Owner has equitable interest
