Theft

Question 1

S1 (1) Theft Act 1968

Answer 1

“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it”

Question 2

Actus Reus

Answer 2

S3 Appropriation

S4 Property

S5 Belonging to another

Question 3

Mens Rea

Answer 3

S2 Dishonestly

S6 Intention to permanently deprive

Question 4

S3 TA 1968

Answer 4

Appropriation

Definition - “Any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner” e.g selling without consent.

Question 5

R v Morris

Answer 5

Only one of the owners rights must be assumed by D for an appropriation to take place.

In changing the price of the product, D assumed the right of an owner.

Question 6

Lawrence v MPC

Answer 6

Even if V consents, there can still be an appropriation because visitors need to be protected and the reasonable and honest person would think it immoral.

Question 7

R v Hinks

Answer 7

Even the accepting of a valid gift can sometimes amount to an appropriation, Especially if the donor is vulnerable in some way.

Question 8

R v Pitham and Hehl

Answer 8

Ds assumed right to offer property for sale.

Question 9

S4 TA 1968

Answer 9

Property:

• Personal property
• Real property
• Money
• Things in action
• Intangible property

Question 10

S4 (2)

Answer 10

Real property - can only be stolen in one of three ways (only need to know two ways):
1. Someone who severs anything considered part of the land from the land.

2. A tenant takes a fixture or a structure from the land let to him.

LAND can only be stolen by certain people in certain ways.

Question 11

S4 (3)

Answer 11

Wild plans, flowers, mushrooms e.t. are not generally considered to be property which can be stolen unless they are picked for sale, reward or other commercial purpose.

Question 12

S4 (4)

Answer 12

Wild creatures cannot generally be stolen unless they have been tamed, are ordinarily kept in captivity or have been reduced in to a person’s possession.

Question 13

Examples of what cannot be property

Answer 13

Kelly v Lindsay - A corpse and body parts aren’t property unless they acquire value i.e educational or artistic like the ones in the case.

R v Welsh - Bodily fluids i.e. urine or saliva can be property and can be stolen.

Question 14

S13 TA 1968

Answer 14

Electricity cannot be stolen although it can be “abstracted”

Question 15

Oxford v Moss

Answer 15

Information cannot be stolen

Question 16

R v Akbar

Answer 16

D took actual exam papers which count as S4 (1) personal property.

Question 17

S5 TA 1968

Answer 17

Belonging to another - “When someone has possession or control of the property or a proprietary right or interest”

Question 18

S5 (1)

Answer 18

R v Turner - Even the legal owner of property is capable of stealing his own if the “possession” or “control” is with someone else.

Williams v Phillips - Rubbish was still the householder’s, until it became the property of the council as soon as the dustmen arrived. Ds (the dustmen) were stealing from the council.

Ricketts v Basildon magistrates - Oxfam: property was stolen from charity because it was in one of their bins. BHF: property belonged to owner as they hadn’t come t- charity’s possession yet.

Question 19

S5 (3)

Answer 19

Davidge v Burnett - If D receives property and is under an obligation yo use it in a particular way, that property will still belong to another.

Question 20

S5 (4)

Answer 20

Att. Gen (1 of 1983) - If property is received by mistake and D is under a legal obligation to return it, then it still belongs to another.

R v Gilks - Only applies if D has a legal obligation to return the property and betting transactions (prostitution + drug dealing) do not create legal obligations.

Question 21

S2 TA 1968

Answer 21

Dishonesty - doesn’t define it. Instead, it provides 3 examples where D isn’t dishonest. These are included in S2 (1) (a); (b); (c).

Question 22

S2 (1) (a)

Answer 22

D is not dishonest if he believes he has a legal right to deprive the other of the property e.g. taking the wring bag by mistake.

Robinson - D believed he was owed money so he did not act dishonestly.

Question 23

S2 (1) (b)

Answer 23

D may not be dishonest if he believes the owner would have consented to the appropriation if they knew of it and its circumstances.

Holden - D believed owner would have consented to the removal of tyres as other people were doing it.

Question 24

S2 (1) (c)

Answer 24

D isn’t dishonest if he believes the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

Small - C/A decided D’s conviction should be quashed if he had honestly believed that it was impossible to find owner as car was left there for over a week.

Question 25

S2 (2)

Answer 25

Expands further on the meaning of dishonest.

R v Ghosh - introduces test for dishonesty:
1. D’s conduct was dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.

2. Did D realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards.

Question 26

S6 TA 1968

Answer 26

Intention to permanently deprive - Intending to treat the property as one’s own to dispose of, regardless of the other’s rights.

Question 27

DPP v Lavender

Answer 27

Because of the meaning of dispose i.e. moving, selling, modifying or even taking property away, the court held that D’s actions amounted to an intention to permanently deprive.

Question 28

R v Velumyl

Answer 28

D intended to deprive V (office) of money. Court held D was guilty because D was permanently depriving the office of that specific money, regardless of his intention to pay it back or not.

Question 29

R v Warner

Answer 29

D’s actions only amounted to borrowing , as D only intended to temporarily deprive V’s tools i.e borrow them.

Question 30

S6 (1)

Answer 30

Borrowing can amount to an intent to permanently deprive if the property is kept for such a time and in such circumstances that make it equivalent to outright taking/ disposal.

Question 31

R v Lloyd

Answer 31

Borrowing can amount to an intention to permanently deprive if the “goodness, virtue and value” has been removed from the property e.g. Concert tickets

Question 32

Conditional intent

Answer 32

D’s intention to permanently deprive is based upon the condition that V has something worth stealing.

R v Easom - conditional intent is not sufficient for theft.