Theft

Question 1

s3 Appropriates - assumption of rights of an owner - x2 cases

Answer 1

R v Morris - switching labels, only one right need to assumed for A

R v Pitham and Hehl - furnature, offering to sell

No need to touch or take property

Question 2

Appropriation and consent, case - case

Answer 2

Consent irrelevant.

R v Gomez - worthless cheques

Question 3

Appropriation and gifts - case

Answer 3

R v Hinks - stupid man taking out money. A can take place with consent.

Question 4

What is later appropriation?

Answer 4

s3.1. Honest when finding item then become dishonest with intention to permanently deprive still counts as appropriation.

Question 5

Innocent purchaser? What is it and case

Answer 5

s3.2 - R v Adams - bought stolen bike parts, could not be convicted of theft by keeping them.

Question 6

Property - what can be stolen?

Answer 6

s4.1

Question 7

Property - what cannot be stolen?

Answer 7

Confidential information - Oxford v Moss - exam paper
Electricity - Low v Blease - burglar phonecall
s4.2-4

Question 8

Belonging to another - what is it and key case?

Answer 8

s5 extends concept of BtA.

5.1 - owner can steal own property

R v Turner - his car from a garage.

Question 9

Belonging to another - abandoned property. x2 cases?

Answer 9

Williams v Phillips - leaving on side of road intends to give to council.

Smith v Hogan - person who loses engagement ring does not abandon even if stop looking, can be reclaimed even if years later.

Question 10

Belonging to another - Statute and x2 cases for control of property?

Answer 10

5.1

R v Woodman - business with control over property, stealing something from premises, even if not theirs, theft

Parker v British Airways - bracelet in lounge, BA did not exercise control over things, not theirs.

Question 11

Belonging to another - 5.3 - meaning and x2 cases

Answer 11

property given for a purpose - A legal obligation to deal with property in a particular way

R v Clowes - commercial

Davidge v Cunnett - domestic, gas and xmas prezzies

Question 12

Belonging to another - property given for a purpose - proceeds?

Answer 12

R v Wain - spending fundraising money!

Question 13

Belonging to another - property given for a purpose - when does a legal obligation arise? x2 cases

Answer 13

R v Hall - travel agency, under contractual obl to buy flights but NOT under obligation to keep customers money separate until it did so.

R v Klineberg and Marsden - contracts that purchasers money would be held in trust fund but they spent it. This WAS a legal obligation.

Question 14

Belonging to another - 5.4 - meaning and x2 cases

Answer 14

Property given by mistake, belongs to legal owner and person entitled to restoration

Moynes v Cooper - kept extra money. 5.4 to rectify this.

AG Ref (no1 of 1983) - policelady paid for overtime by mistake. Legal obligation to pay back.

R v Shadrockh - Cigari - person who gives property by mistake has equitable interest in property.

Question 15

Belonging to another - the time at which ownership passes?! 2 cases.

Answer 15

Edwards v Ddin. Decides to pay for petrol later, not theft as not owned anymore.

Corcoran v Whent - cannot steal food in tummy. But ownership passes before eating maybe.
Hole in theft act…

Question 16

Dishonesty - statute, what it does

Answer 16

s2 - relates but does not define

Question 17

s2.1, case

Answer 17

Honest belief in this will prevent D from being dishonest

R v Robinson - all about what they believe, so is subjective (not reasonable)

Question 18

s2.2

Answer 18

Covers people who takes things from people who do not want to sell them. Dishonest to take milk from doorstep even if paying.
D can be dishonest, even with an intention to pay for the property.

Question 19

What test do you do after 2.1 and 2.2 in dishonesty?

Answer 19

R v Ghosh

1) Was the Ds behaviour dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? (if no, do not need to ask second)
2) Did the D realise that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest?

Question 20

Key case for s6 - the intention of permanenlty deprivation.

Answer 20

R v Velumyl - must be intention to return exactly the same property. took lots of money from safe of workplace. He had no intention to permanently deprive, would pay back. BUT he DID of that PARTICULAR property.

Question 21

6.1 - case for ‘treating the thing as it’s own’?

Answer 21

R v Scott - took curtains to return. Treating as her own.

Question 22

6.1 - case for ‘to dispose of’?

Answer 22

R v Cahill - to deal with definitely-to get rid of, get done with, finish. Make over by way of bargain, sell. Oxford english dictionary.

Question 23

6.1 - Definition from Cahill applied?

Answer 23

DPP v J - snapped a boy’s headphones. Snapping in 2, demonstrated intention to treat as own regardless of owner’s rights. ‘Finished’ essentially if rendered useless.

Question 24

6.1 - 2 ransom cases?

Answer 24

R v Lloyd - ‘treated as own’ also covers ransom case - making over by way of bargain.

R v Raphael - said could only have car back if given money. Covered by 6.1

Question 25

6.1 - an alternative case for how one may be treating an object as it’s own>

Answer 25

R v Fernandes - ‘Dealing with it in a manner that he knows is risking its loss’.

Applied in R v Marshall.

Question 26

6.1 - ‘dealing with’ don’t think i’ll need…

Answer 26

R v Vinall - R v Mitchell… (robbery, nec to prove theft. Found friends and jumped into BMW. Cahill, car had not been disposed. Fernandes, had not risked car’s loss. So, CoA turned conviction…)

Question 27

6.1 - borrowing - key case and little test

Answer 27

Outright taking or disposal

R v Lloyd - projectionist borrowed films and made into pirates but returned. All goodness, virtue and practical has gone. BUT it has NOT. No theft.

Borrowing so all the goodness virtue and practical value has gone =

Borrowing in circ making it equivalent to an outright taking or disp (lloyd) =

Treating it as your own to dispose of regardless of the others rights (s6(1))=

Having an intention to perm deprive s6.1

Question 28

Possible defences for theft.

Answer 28

Duress

Self defence - unlikely to be dishonestly

Consent - see s2.1.b

Intoxication - a specific intent crime