Theft Flashcards
5 elements of theft
dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another intention to permanently deprive
Morris 1984
Held: an appropriation of A right but it does not need to be an appropriation of all the rights
Facts: D a disgruntled supermarket employee changed prices of items, appropriated the right to decide the price of the item (a significant right) - widened the definition of appropriation despite the statute referring to multiple rights
Hinks 2000
Facts: D, an employee at a nursing home was ‘given’ massively generous gifts and money by V who was an elderly person of low intelligence
Held: There can still be an appropriation where the V consents and there is no fraud in obtaining
Kohn 1979
Credit in an account can be regarded as property
Ricketts v Basildon Mag court 2010
Facts: D took donated goods from outside a charity shop - left their because the shop hadn’t opened yet
Held: Item belonged to another - it was a gift to the charity shop so the goods belonged to the donor until BHF received them - wasn’t found they were necessarily abandoned
Woodman 1974
Facts: D took metal from a disused site
Held: V doesn’t need to know the property is there because it is their land and they still have control over it
Turner (No 2) 1971
Facts: D took his car back from the garage after work had been done on it, not paid for repairs
Held: D stole his own property - the garage had legal right over the car as they were in possession and had control over it
Edwards v Ddin 1976
Facts: Tries to impress girlfriend by renting a ferrari, put petrol in his car and then he drove off with the petrol in his car without paying
Held: No theft because once the property was in the tank it became ‘in ownership’ - already appropriated and D only formed the intention to not pay after the petrol already belonged to him
Hall 1972
Facts: travel agent received deposits for flight tickets but did not book the flights and the business collapsed before he could book them
Held: Travel agent not liable for theft because they were under no obligation to deal with the money in a particular way
AG Ref No 1 of 1983
Facts: D was overpaid wages by mistake
Who did the extra money belong to?
Held: the workplace had an equitable right to the money (which was a ‘thing in action’) because there was a mistake of fact/identity and the defendant was under a legal obligation to return the money, this obligation became operative when she realised and did nothing to restore
Lavender 1994
Facts: D took doors from one council property to replace his
defence argued he didn’t treat it as his own to dispose of it as it was still on their property
Held: dispose of doesn’t necessarily mean get rid of but it means to ‘deal with it as your own’
AG’s ref no 1 & 2 of 1979
Facts: Burglary - D was found inside house - attempting to steal through french windows ‘anything lying around’
Held: Conditional intent with suffice - all that is required is intent to steal at point of entry, Not necessary to prove what was intended to be stolen - if it turns out nothing is worth stealing in the building, D may still be liable for burglary
R v Brown 1985
Facts: D was leaning through a shops broken window and rummaging to steal
Held: The word ‘enter’ in s9 of the TA meant effective entry, it was not necessary for it to be complete or even substantial
Robinson 1977
Facts: D was owed wages by boss and threatened boss in an attempt to get them
Held: It wasn’t theft because D had no dishonesty because he believed he was entitled to them
A jury will however not accept a belief that is wholly unreasonable an practically the less realistic the belief is the less likely a D would be able to not be liable
- Not robbery because no dishonesty meant no theft
Dishonesty test (before Ivy)
Ghosh Test - Ghosh 1982
- (Objective) According to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was it dishonest?
- (subjective - now redundant) Whether the defendant realises it was dishonest by reasonable peoples standards
