Theft Flashcards
What is the definition of theft and where can it be found?
S.1 of the theft act 1968 states: ‘a person commits theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it’
Appropriation definition & where can it be found?
S.3 “any assumption of the rights of the owner amount to an appropriation”
R V MORRIS FACTS?
Defendants were changing price labels on goods in a shop in order to attempt to buy the more expensive goods at a lower price.
Ruling in MORRIS?
Held that they had appropriated the goods. It was established that appropriation covers the assumption of any of the rights of an owner.
Does appropriation require D to take anything?
No.
PITHAM AND HEHL - defendants entered the house of someone they knew to be in prison and offered to sell the furniture to a 3rd party.
By offering to sell they had assumed the rights of the owner.
ANDERTON FACTS & ruling?
Two men attempted to snatch a woman’s bag. She struggled and they ran off empty handed. They didn’t take anything. Charged with robbery which requires theft.
Court held that they had appropriated the handbag when they handled it.
What does an assumption of the rights of the owner include?
Keeping the property (borrowing)
Dealing with the property (selling something you borrowed)
Damaging or destroying property
Throwing away property
Can there still be appropriation if the owner consents to the taking?
The theft act created a whole rang of offences in addition to theft itself. Amongst these were deception offences. Dishonestly deceiving another into giving you something they otherwise wouldn’t have found in the FRAUD ACT.
LAWRENCE FACTS
An Italian student unfamiliar with UK currency handed over his wallet to a taxi driver who took £6 when the actual fare was 50p.
Convicted of theft and appealed on the grounds the student gave him the money therefore consented to the taking
LAWRENCE RULING?
H/L decided: there was little evidence that the student had actually consented; secondly consent was irrelevant to appropriation.
A02 - LAWRENCE AND MORRIS
Followed a string of cases that followed after Lawrence and seem to suggest in order to appropriate something you have to do something that goes beyond what the owner expressly or impliedly consent to. (E.g. Morris)
MORRIS A02
The obiter Lord Roskill stated that: there is no appropriation if the defendant has the express or implied permission of the owner.
The principle in MORRIS was irreconcilable with that in LAWRENCE.
The conflict in Lawrence and Morris was resolved in the case of?
GOMEZ: D1 had two stolen chequers. His accomplice D2 persuaded his employer to accepted these in return for the supply of goods. Chequers were worthless D1 told his boss they were “good as cash”.
GOMEZ RULING
H/L had to choose between Lawrence and Morris and followed Lawrence holding that a person could appropriate property even though he had the owners consent to exercise the right in question.
Court of appeal appeared to have trouble with the ruling in Gomez?
GALLASSO - Lloyd LJ stated that a shop owner who picks up goods in a shop does not appropriate those goods. Unless s/he does something contrary to the express or implied wishes of the owner.
