Theft Flashcards
Actus Reus - Theft
The appropriation of property belonging to another
Appropriation
S3(1) - any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
The assumption by the defendant of any of the rights of the owner is sufficient, it is not necessary to show that all or most of the rights have been assumed.
D may be guilty of theft although he does not intend by the act of appropriation itself to deprive the owner permanently of the property
R v Morris
It is possible to assume the owner’s rights even where the act is done with the owner’s consent
R v Gomez (manager authorised payment by fraudulent cheques - consent had been obtained under false representation)
Theft of gifts - state of mind of the donor is irrespective; appropriation can take place with or without the consent of the owner
R v Hinks
Later appropriation - s3(1)
As assumption includes where he has come by the property without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping it or dealing with it as owner. Theft will therefore take place when the defendant forms the MR
Appropriation need not be an instantaneous act, it can be continuing
R v Hale (tied woman up after taking jewellery; continuing appropriation allowed them to be convicted of robbery)
Innocent purchaser - s3(2) exempts a defendant where D buys goods in good faith and for value, and later discovers that the seller had no title to the property but decides to keep it
R v Adams
Property
s4 - includes money and all other real or personal property, including things in action and other intangible property
A person cannot steal land or things forming part of the land (exception in act)
A person who picks wild plants or fruit does not steal unless he does so for sale/reward
Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property, but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity
Confidential information cannot fall within the definition of intangible property contained in s4(1)
Oxford v Moss
Belonging to another
s5(1) - anyone having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest
Abandoned property ceases to belong to another; but courts reluctant to find that it has been abandoned
Williams v Phillips - householder doesn’t abandon goods which he puts in the dustbin
Property is only abandoned when the owner is indifferent as to any future appropriation.
Property can belong to persons who have control or possession not just of the specified property, but over the land on which it was found, even where the owner of the land is unaware of its existence
R v Woodman (factory owners took steps to exclude trespassers so they had control of factory and thus of the scrap metal which had been left unknown to them)
Parker v British Airways Board (BA exercised no control over building and things in it)
It is possible to steal your own property
Turner (No 2)
Property given to another for a particular purpose
s5(3) property given for a purpose still belongs to the donor, but only where the accused is under a legal obligation to use the property for the purpose given
Legal obligation to use property for purpose
R v Hall (travel agent - no obligation)
Davidge v Bunnett (flatmates’ money not used on bills)
R v Breaks and Huggan - s5(3) has no automatic application where it is expected that money will be used in a particular way - no Quistclose trust
R v Klineberg and Marsden - express assurances that money would be safeguarded created legal obligation
Legal obligation need not require the defendant to retain and deal with the actual property, it is enough that there is an obligation to deal with the proceeds of that property
R v Wain (fundraising - obligation to retain proceeds, not the exact notes and coins)
Where property has passed to the defendant by mistake and D is under an obligation to make restoration, property belongs to another - s5(4). Intention not to make restoration amounts to an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds
AG’s Reference (No1 of 1983) - policewoman overpaid, under legal obligation to restore money as under s5(4) money also belonged to the police.
Bank retained equitable interest in money mistakenly deposited into child’s account and so still belonged to bank
R v Shaddrock-Cigari
Mr for theft
Dishonestly intends to permanently deprive
s2 - not dishonest
- D believes he has legal right to deprive the other of the property
- D believes the person to whom the property belongs would have consented had he known of the appropriation
- D believes that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps (no need to actually take steps). If owner later becomes known to D, keeping the property could be dishonest.
s2 - no need for belief to be reasonable held; it only needs to be genuine
R v Robinson
R v Ghost test:
1) according to the standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If not, prosecution fails.
2) if dishonest by those standards, the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. This will generally be obvious.
Person can appropriate property dishonestly despite being willing to pay (e.g. taking property that owner doesn’t wish to sell, intending to pay for it)
s2(2) TA
Dishonest intent must be formed at a time when the goods belong to another
Edwards v Ddin
Ownership of food passes when it is eaten
Corcoran v Whent
Ownership of petrol passes when it is put in a petrol tank
In absence of MR from the outset, the appropriate charge it making off without payment
Intention to permanently deprive
No requirement that owner is actually deprived of property permanently
s6 should not be referred to where it is clear that the defendant does intend the owner to lose his property permanently
R v Lloyd
s6(1) ITPD
Defendant has intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights = ITPD
Treating the thing as his own to dispose - dictionary definition
R v Cahill (newpapers) - dispose of = deal with definitely, to get rid of, to get done with, to finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell.
s6(1) can cover situations where the defendant takes things and then offers them back to the owner to buy if he wishes or does something
R v Lloyd
R v Scott
R v Raphael
s6(1) also covers rendering the property useless
DPP v J (broke headphones)
D dealing with property in a way that he knows is risking its loss = ITPD
R v Fernandez (risky investment)
R v Mitchell (left car with hazard lights on - not risking loss nor dealing with definitely)
Mere borrowing is never enough to constitute the necessary MR unless the intention is to return the thing in such a changed state that all its goodness or virtue or practical value has gone
R v Lloyd (films borrowed)
R v Beecham (returning railway tickets once journey completed)
s6(2) parting with property under a condition as to its return that he may not be able to perform = treating property of his own to dispose of
e.g. pledging O’s property as security for a loan
Intending to return coins of the same value is not the same as returning the stolen property (though may be relevant to issue of dishonesty, it will not negate ITPD)
R v Velumyl
