Theft Flashcards
Theft Act 1968 S.1
s.b. page 49
Basic Definition of Theft
‘dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.’
ACTUS REUS = appropriation of property belonging to another/
MENS REA = ‘dishonest intention to permanently deprive’.
Theft + steal - same thing
S.3. Theft Act 1968
APPROPRIATION = any assumption of the rights of an owner
Lawrence v MPC
D, taxi driver, took advantage of Italian tourist who handed him wallet to take £1 as he did not understand currency.
Took far more than entitled to.
Criminal liability.
Establishes that THERE CAN BE APPROPRIATION EVEN THOUGH THE VICTIM CONSENTED TO HANDING OVER THE PROPERTY.
R. v Morris
D - mixing around price labels on products in supermarket.
Said by Lord Roskill, OBITER, that D must have “adversely interfered with or usurped the rights of the owners of the goods.”
Suggested move in 1980s to idea that appropriation requires something more than merely picking up the property.
R. v Gomez [1993]
Invalidated obiter in R v Morris.
APPROPRIATION DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADVERSE INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROPERTY.
Case - friends - D was shop worker - made deal involving cheques that they wouldn’t cash. Argued that, because shop owner told Gomez (D) to go ahead with sale, that he had given his consent.
H OF L MADE CLEAR THAT CONSENT DOES NOT NEGATE APPROPRIATION.
R. v Hinks
Carer taking advantage of elderly man - went along with him to bank everyday and he withdrew money to maximum and gave it to her.
Had gained by the end of this £60,000 and some jewellery.
Argued that you cannot APPROPRIATE a gift.
H of L found way around the problem - UNDUE PRESSURE - TOOK AWAY THE VALIDITY OF THE GIFT AND THE APPARENT CONSENT.
About protecting vulnerable in society plus communicating message (deterrence + legal moralism)
Shows the definition of appropriation being kept broad, in order to catch al those who act dishonestly…
Shows how mens rea (dishonesty) is a central part in the actus reus as well.
Theft Act 1968 S.4
s.b. pages 49-50
Definition of PROPERTY
Also defined broadly.
Just be aware of the section.
Theft Act 1968 S.5
‘Belonging to another’
Includes proprietary right/interest
R. v Turner (No. 2) [1971]
Shows that you can be charged for stealing something that YOU OWN.
Car garage repairs case - left on road - came along dishonestly and took car back without paying for repair work.
Held; until he had paid garage, the garage had a proprietary interest in the car - thus capable of satisfying the requirement under S.5 Theft Act 1968 - that it ‘belonged to another.’
A-G’s Reference (No. 1 of 1983)
D - police officer - overpaid her monthly salary.
She was aware of this, but did not disclose it.
Conviction of theft UPHELD.
Money still ‘belonged to’ the employer - had dishonest intention to keep it - i.e. to permanently deprive of it.
S.5(4) applied directly (‘where a person gets property by another’s mistake…’)
Theft Act 1968 S.2.
DISHONESTY
Defines dishonesty in negative way - lists circumstances in which the judge can direct jury that they can INFER that D was NOT acting dishonestly:
S.2.(1)
(a) if he had belief that he has in law a right to deprive the other of it.
(b) if he appropriates with belief that he would have consent if he (owner) knew about the appropriation
(c) if he appropriates and can’t discover to whom it belongs by taking reasonable steps.
(2) Can be dishonest even if willing to pay for property.
R. v GHOSH [1982]
COMMON LAW TEST OF DISHONESTY.
Applies to all property offences.
(1) Would the ordinary, reasonable person think that their action was dishonest?
(2) If satisfied, they must ask: was the defendant aware that, by what they were doing, was dishonest?
(In the case, medical practitioner was charging people privately for abortions, even though employed by NHS.)
Test is objective with a subjective limb.
Theft Act 1968 S.6.
s.b. page 50
‘Intention to permanently deprive’
S.6.
(1) to be treated as intention to permanently deprive if D treats property as his own to dispose of, or to lend or borrow for such a period of time and in circumstances that make it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Borrowing can amount to intention to p…
(2) …
R. v Lloyd
D - worked in movie theatre (pre days of piracy offences)
Stole films from projector reel, made copies of them and distributed to friends.
Q: did he have an intention to permanently deprive?
Argued that he only intended to borrow them.
ALLOWED - borrowing was insufficient to constitute the mens rea under s.6 (1) unless the intention was to return the thing in such a changed state that it had lost all its goodness or virtue. - Films had not diminished in value as could still be projected to paying audiences.
R. v Velumyl
D worked in bank - took cash from till one day as needed for going out in evening - intended to put money back in the next day.
Conv. of theft and appealed, arguing that he did not have intention to permanently deprive as planned to reimburse bank.
Dismissed - act of appropriation with a dishonest mind was in relation to the specific bank notes that were taken. - As these could never be restored, even if he returned other notes and coins - intention to permanently deprive.
