Theft Flashcards
Definition of Theft
Defined in section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968)
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates the property belonging to another with the intention of depriving the other of it
Conduct element
Actus reus- any conduct causing the result
Mens rea- voluntary
Circumstance element
Actus reus- what is appropriated is property belonging to another
D’s appropriation is dishonest
Mens rea- knowledge
Result element
Actus reus- D appropriates V’s property
Mens rea- intention
Ulterior mens rea element
Mens rea- intention to permanently deprive V of her property
Appropriation is in which section
3
Of property… section??
Section 4
Belonging to another .. section??
Section 5
With the intention to permanently deprive .. section ??
Section 6
Dishonestly .. section??
Section 2
So…. Section 6
With the intention of permanently depriving
Section 3
Appropriation
Section 5
Belonging to another
Section 2
Dishonestly
Section 4
Of property
Appropriation definition
Appropriation is defined in s 3 of the Theft act (1968)
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation and this includes where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner
Assuming the rights of an owner
Section 3 (1) is clear that assuming the rights of an owner will amount to an appropriation E.g. Taking v's property and treating it as their own
Morris clarified that an assumption of any one property right will be sufficient
Morris (1984)
D switched labels on supermarket goods in order to purchase the more expensive goods at the galea lower price
Crown court- guilty of theft
Court of appeal- upheld conviction
House of Lords- dismissed appeal when D swaps labels D assumed a ‘right of the owner (the right price to the price of goods) and this was sufficient to amount to an appropriation
Gomez
Confirms the approach of Morris
If D takes an item from V with the intention of borrowing it and returning it later then she appropriates at the point of taking physical possession.
It is at that point that D assumes rights of possession and control
But if she later decides to keep the item, then this later decision amounts to a further appropriation when she assumes the rights of ownership
What approach should you take when selecting which appropriation method applies
Identify which act of appropriation is most likely to lead to liability for theft (i.e. Which act also coincides with the other elements of the offence)
What other ways can appropriation of certain property be committed
Can appropriate certain property through omission or through the mental act of deciding to treat v’a property as her own
Where D discovers that she has accidentally taken property D will not be assumed to have appropriated the property if she has not treated it as her own or made a decision to keep it
However is she does so decide, this and any other assumptions of rights will be sufficient to constitute the appropriation element of the actus reus
Gomez (1993)
D was the assistant manager of an electrical goods shop
He convinced his manager to allow a customer to buy items using cheques that D knew were stolen and therefore worthless
The manager consented to the sale
D was charged with theft
Crown court- guilty of theft
Court of appeal- appeal allowed. Following Morris the consent of V undermines the element of appropriation
House of Lords: appeal allowed, reaffirming Ds liability and following Lawrence
With lord Lowry dissenting, the lords confirmed that, where D tricks v, appropriation will be found whenever there is an assumption of ownership rights by D regardless of Vs consent
Appropriation with consent
‘Any assumption’ of rights will constitute an appropriation
Cases such as Laurence have held that the consent or non consent of V is irrelevant
Confirmed in Gomez
As long as D assumes a right of ownership over V’s property, there will be an appropriation with V’s consent or non consent is irrelevant
Appropriation with full civil title
Hinks confirmed that where D assumes ownership rights from V this may be an appropriation even where the property is consensually transferred from V with full title
(Where the transfer is valid and non voidable in civil law)
D may be liable for theft of certain property in criminal law but be entitled to keep that sane property in civil law
Hinks (2000)
D befriended V who was a man described by the court as naive, trusting and limited intelligence.
Almost every day she took V to his building society and withdrew the maximum £300 amounting to £60,000 in six months
D was charged with theft
Court of Appeal- upheld conviction
House of Lords- dismissed appeal even though it didn’t amount to a civil wrong, this did not preclude it being a theft
The bona fide purchased exception
Section 3(2) of the TA 1968 creates an exception where no appropriation will be found
This arises where D purchases property in good faith (bona fide), believing that she is gaining full civil title
It then transpires that full title has not be transferred (e.g. Because the goods were stolen) but D continues to treat the item as her own
In such a case D has assumed the rights of the owner but this section stops it being the result in the law
This only applies to property acquired by D for value so it does not apply for gifts received by D
Potentially liable for handling stolen property and/ or fraud is she presents herself as the owner
E.g. To sell the property to another
Definition of Property
Section 4 of the Theft Act provides a definition of property
Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property
Real property
Reference to land making the defendant liable for theft of certain land rights
Personal property
Reference to all property that is not land and that includes property that is illegal or prohibited i.e. Drugs
Things in action
Intangible property where D has the right to sue another for a particular sum
I.e. Bank accounts
Where D dishonestly causes the bank to transfer funds from V’s account, D does not steal any physical money belonging to V she steals a thing in action
I.e. She steals part of V’s right to sue V’s bank for a sum of money
Same is true if D transfers money from V’s overdraft
Only exception is where V had no thing in action