Theft Flashcards
Define theft
Appropriating the property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it with dishonesty.
Outline the sections of the theft act
S2 dishonesty (men’s rea) S3 appropriates ( actually reus) S4 property (part of the actus reus) S5 belonging to another (part of the actus reus) S6 with intention to permanently deprive the other of it (men’s rea)
Outline the facts of pit ham v hehl 1977
D put furniture on the internet to sell that wasn’t his , held it was appropriation because D assumed the rights of the owner (who was in prison) it did not matter whether the furniture was physically sold or not, appropriation is theft.
What did the case of Morris establish and list the facts
D switched the labels on an item tag in a supermarket. He had put it in his basket but not gone to checkout.
Held: it is theft to assume any rights of the owner
What does the case of Lawrence say about the law on theft and state the facts
An Italian student spoke little English and got in a taxi. Laurence (D) took £6 from the students purse when the student allowed him to pull the “correct” money out. Lawrence argued that it was not appropriation because the owner consented however
Held: there was appropriation even if there’s consent
How does the case of Gomez develop the law and list the facts
D an assistant manager of a shop persuaded the manager to accept two cheques from a customer. The cheques were stolen and had no value. D was charged and convicted of theft of the goods.
Held: The House of Lords followed Lawrence and upheld the convictions. An appropriation does not require absence of consent, with dishonesty and deception
Is d appropriating rights if they pick items out of someone else’s basket
Yes, the House of Lords said there is appropriation in the case of Gomez by following the ratio of Lawrence that an act can be a appropriated with consent of the owner.
Which case supports appropriation at one point in time
Atkpu and Abraham’s 1994
Describe the facts and legal development in atkpu and Abraham’s
D hired 3 expensive cars abroad to sell in England. D argued that no appropriation had taken place in England and it was not triable in England.
Keeping and driving the cars in England was not an appropriation because they assumed the rights in Germany.
Describe a later assumption of the rights of the owner
Section 3 (1) An appropriation can take place where the defendant aquires property without stealing it but later decides to keep it.
Ie. Renting a video game then keeping it
Define propety
S.4 of the theft act provides that propety includes
Define theft
Appropriating the property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it with dishonesty.
Outline the sections of the theft act
S2 dishonesty (men’s rea) S3 appropriates ( actually reus) S4 property (part of the actus reus) S5 belonging to another (part of the actus reus) S6 with intention to permanently deprive the other of it (men’s rea)
Outline the facts of pit ham v hehl 1977
D put furniture on the internet to sell that wasn’t his , held it was appropriation because D assumed the rights of the owner (who was in prison) it did not matter whether the furniture was physically sold or not, appropriation is theft.
What did the case of Morris establish and list the facts
D switched the labels on an item tag in a supermarket. He had put it in his basket but not gone to checkout.
Held: it is theft to assume any rights of the owner not all of them
What does the case of Lawrence say about the law on theft and state the facts
An Italian student spoke little English and got in a taxi. Laurence (D) took £6 from the students purse when the student allowed him to pull the “correct” money out. Lawrence argued that it was not appropriation because the owner consented however
Held: there was appropriation even if there’s consent
How does the case of Gomez develop the law and list the facts
D an assistant manager of a shop persuaded the manager to accept two cheques from a customer. The cheques were stolen and had no value. D was charged and convicted of theft of the goods.
Held: even thought the orbiter in Morris said that picking up items in a store and putting them in your basket is not appropriating rights, the house or lords held theft will only be committed if there is mens rea for theft
Is d appropriating rights if they pick items out of someone else’s basket
Yes, the House of Lords said there is appropriation in the case of Gomez by following the ratio of Lawrence that an act can be a appropriated with consent of the owner.
Which case supports appropriation at one point in time
Atkpu and Abraham’s 1994
Describe the facts and legal development in atkpu and Abraham’s
D hired 3 expensive cars abroad to sell in England. D argued that no appropriation had taken place in England and it was not triable in England.
Keeping and driving the cars in England was not an appropriation because they assumed the rights in Germany.
Describe a later assumption of the rights of the owner
Section 3 (1) An appropriation can take place where the defendant aquires property without stealing it but later decides to keep it.
Ie. Renting a video game then keeping it
Define propety
S.4 of the theft act provides that propety includes: money, personal belongings, things in action and intangible property
Kelly v Lindsey
D is an artist. She asks Lindsay for body parts from the hospital to use in an art gallery. D was guilty of theft.
Theft includes body parts as for the use of skill, learning and dissection
R v Smith
Smith and D attacked and stole £50 heroin.
Theft includes prohibited drugs
Define real property
Legal term for land and buildings.
S.4 land can be stolen and 4.2 says it can only be done in 3 circumstances:
Trustee takes land in breach of his duties
Someone not in possession of the land
Tennang takes a structure from the land let to him
Describe intangible property with cases
Refers to rights which have no physical presence but can be stolen under the theaft act.
Attorney G ref Hong Kong v chan: export quota for textiles can be stolen
Oxford v miss: knowledge of questions on an examination paper is not property.
Define s.5 of the theft act
Propety belongs to a person who is in possession or has control or has a propitiatory interest.
what can not be stolen under property
wild animals and flowers etc
A02- definition gives a clear def of what is included and whats not ie fungi
which cases illustrate possession/ control under s.5 of belonging to another
Turner- Defendant took his car for service at the garage, car was left outside with the keys in on collection so he drove it away. Charged of theft because garage was in control of it.
Woodman- D took scrap metal from a factory site not in use. The owners wern’t aware the metal was there but D still convicted because the site owners were in control of the property within.
Define propitiatory interest under s.5 and support with a case.
webster- got sent 2 medals, one was by mistake so d sold the other. because the medals did not actually belong to him, d was guilty of theft
what is property received under obligation and give a case
Giving someone a £1 to buy sweets but they spend it on something else
hall- d the travel agent was given a deposit for a holiday with no instructions of booking so he left deposit in the box.
d convicted but on appeal was quashed as there was no instructions given of what to do
define property received by mistake with case
Gilks 1972- d overpaid winnings at a bookmaker and kept it even though he knew it was the wrong ammount.
Jury are directed to judge if D acted dishonestly
summarize the mens rea structure for theft
dishonesty ( no definition)
“it is immateriel whether the apropriations are made for gain or for owns benefit” motive is irrelevant
s.2 theft act behaviour that is not dishonest etc
Gosh Test
Ivey (overulled gosh test)
Velumyl (intension to perminently deprive)
Outline the Gosh Test
facts: D was a doctor who claimed fees for an operation that he didn’t do but claimed he was still owed the consultation fees anyways.
ratio: Was D dishonest by ordinary standards? Did D realise by his own standards
list the problems/advantages with the gosh test
- You will always get a conviction because the jury will answer yes to at least one question
- The idea of ordinary man is fiction because societu dont all have the same standards
- specialist cases eg. fraud or business may be hard for juries to evaluate as they may not be able to tell what is honest/ dishonest
describe Ivey v gettings casinos
overulled the gosh test with practice statement making it just objective
Which section governs robbery
S8 theft act
Bullet point the actus reus of robbery
Actus reus for theft
With force/seeking fear
Immediate in order to steal
Bullet point men’s rea for robbery
MR for theft must be established
Intended to use force to steal
Dishonesty + permanently deprived
Robinson
D ran a clothing store saying he was owed £7 by D’s wife. In a struggle V dropped a £5 note and took it. Robbery was quashed because there was no satisfaction for theft as D genuinely believed the money was his.
Zerei 2012
D abandoned a stolen car (which wasn’t theft because he didn’t intend to permanently deprive) not guilty of burglary
Corcoran and Anderton
D hit a woman in the back and tried to steal her bag, when she hit the floor she screamed attracting attention so he ran off. Attempted theft sucseeded so the burglary did.
What are the 4 cases that outline force/threat of force
Bentham- pointed finger gun at D, threat of force is enough
Clouden- wrenched bag from shoulder, Force to propety can be enough
B & R v DPP- surrounded D for food/ money, it doesnt matter if the defendant wasnt scared they still used threats of force
Dawson& James- Nudged victim to steal his wallet, Jury can decide what ammounts to force
When must the force be in the actus reus of robbery
Force used immediately before or at the time of theft
Hale 1979
D’s broke into a house and covered a woman’s mouth, D2 then stole a jewelry box and tied her up as they left.
Ratio: apropriation can be a continuing act and is up to the jury when it ends
Lockley 1995
D caught shop lifting cans from an of-licence he used force when he stopped him from escaping
D appealed that the theft was complete but judge followed decision in Hale.
which section governs burglary
s.9 theft act
Outline the sub sections in burglary
9 (1) (a)
9 (1) (b)
outline the content in section 9 (1) (a)
Enters the building as a trespasser with intent to:
steal
inflict GBH
Unlawful damage
(Only needs to be proven that D has broke with intent to do one of the things, he doesn’t need to actually do anything)
Outline content in section 9 (1) (b)
entering as a trespasser:
steals/ attempts to steal
inflicts/ attempts to inflict GBH
which cases outline ENTRY for burglary
Collins
Brown
Ryan
which cases outline building/ part of a building
B+S lathley
Northfork v gould
Walkigton
which cases outline going beyond permission in burglary
smith v jones
barker v R
Brown (burglary)
D standing outside leaning through a shop window to rummage through goods.
COA held that ‘substantial’ didnt assist the definition of entry. Conviction upheld
Ryan (burglary)
D got trapped trying to get through a window
even though entry wasn’t effective there was evidence to suggest entry
walkington (burglary)
D ebtered a till in a part of a shop he wasnt allowed
ratio: D enterd a part of a building and developed the law to include storage areas in shops
Smith V Jones
D and friend into fathers house and took 2 T.V’s
ratio: COA said that D entered in excess of permission given
B+s lathley 1979
A freezer on a farm for 2 years was considered a building as it was connected to house electricity and had locks.
Ratio- any property linked to house electricity and has doors with locks is considered a building.
Northfolk v gould
a storage supply had a door and was broken into with wheels and electricity.
Ratio- anything with wheels on is considered a veichle and not a building
what are the problems with the theft act
- level of force for robbery is very low as identified in Dawson and James, the word ‘force’ is an ordinary word and when put to a jury is open to interpretation.
- Theft robbery and burglary should be treat as separate offences because its hard to establish theft robbery and burglary all together
- The gosh test has a two part test which is confusing for jurors, law commission have suggested it be codified in statute to make it easier.
- section 6.1 intention to permanently deprive . At what point in time, or in what circumstances, does borrowing or lending property amount to an intention to deprive? One hour, one day, one week, one month or one year? Clearly the courts have had a hard time construing this section and applying it in practice as demonstrated in R v Llyod [1985].
- The Theft Act 1968 does not provide a legal definition of “dishonest”. The lack of legislative clarity on this term may result in confusion on how it is to be interpreted in law. This may then lead to an inconsistent application of it.
