Theft

Question 1

R v Pitman and Hehl

Answer 1

• D sold furniture belonging to another person but did not come into actual possession of the property.
• Theft Act 1968 S3 - ‘Appropriation’
• Appropriation - selling was a right of the owner with which D interfered.

Question 2

R v Morris

Answer 2

• D swapped price labels on two items in a supermarket.
• Theft Act 1968 S3 - ‘Appropriation’
• Switching labels and trying to pay the lower price was an appropriation, an interference of the owners rights.

Question 3

R v Kelly and Lindsay

Answer 3

• D1 made sculptures, cast from body parts obtained by D2 through his job at the Royal College of Surgeons.
• Theft Act 1968 S4 - ‘Property’
• This is an exception to the common-law rule that a corpse is not property - acquired body parts can be property.

Question 4

R v Basildon Magistrates Court

Answer 4

• D took bags containing donated items left outside a charity shop intended for sale in the shop and bags from behind the shop.
• D claimed they were abandoned.
• Theft Act 1968 S5 - ‘Belonging to Another’
• The bags, and their contents, outside the shop remained the property of the donor, while those behind the shop were the property of the charity.

Question 5

R v Holden

Answer 5

• D took old car tyres from his former employer, believing he had permission or would have had permission if he had asked.
• Theft Act 1968 S2(1)(a) - ‘Dishonestly’
• The question for the jury was whether H had, or might have had, the necessary honest belief, reasonably or not.

Question 6

R v Lawrence

Answer 6

• D, a taxi driver, took £7 for a £1 fare from an italian tourist who spoke little English and was unfamiliar with the currency. V had held his wallet open and D took the £7.
• Theft Act 1968 S2(1)(b) - ‘Dishonestly’
• Belief or absence of belief that the owner consented to the appropriation is relevant to the issue of dishonesty.

Question 7

R v Small

Answer 7

• D took a car which had been left for two weeks with the windows open, keys left in the ignition, a flat battery and no petrol.
• Theft Act 1968 S2(1)(c) - ‘Dishonestly’
• A belief unreasonably held can be an honest belief.

Question 8

R v Velumyl

Answer 8

• D borrowed over £1,050 from the safe at work, with the intention to pay it back the following Monday, this was against company rules.
• Theft Act 1968 S6 - ‘Intention to Permanently Deprive’
• Held as an intention to permanently deprive as the exact money could not be replaced.

Question 9

Lavender v DPP

Answer 9

• D removed two doors from a council house to replace two broken doors at his girlfriend’s council house.
• Theft Act 1968 S6 - ‘Intention to Permanently Deprive’
• D intended to treat the doors as his own, regardless of the council’s interest.

Question 10

R v Lloyd

Answer 10

• D worked in a cinema and took films so that copies could be made by some associates.
• Theft Act 1968 S6 - ‘Intention to Permanently Deprive’
• This was not theft. The films were returned in their original state and had lost no practical value.

Question 11

R v Easom

Answer 11

• D rummaged through a handbag in a cinema but took nothing.
• Theft Act 1968 S6 - ‘Intention to Permanently Deprive’ (Conditional Intent)
• If D decides not to take another’s property, then this isn’t theft under S1.

Question 12

Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd

Answer 12

• D, a professional gambler, had ‘won’ £7.7million at a casino.
• The casino owners refused to pay, saying he had cheated.
• Theft Act 1968 S2 - ‘Dishonestly’
• The Supreme Court installed the civil test for dishonesty as the preferred test under the criminal law.