Theft

Question 1

Actus Reus - Theft

Answer 1

The appropriation of property belonging to another

Question 2

Appropriation

Answer 2

S3(1) - any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner

Question 3

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

Answer 3

R v Morris

Question 4

It is possible to assume the owner’s rights even where the act is done with the owner’s consent

Answer 4

R v Gomez (manager authorised payment by fraudulent cheques - consent had been obtained under false representation)

Question 5

Theft of gifts - state of mind of the donor is irrespective; appropriation can take place with or without the consent of the owner

Answer 5

R v Hinks

Question 6

Later appropriation - s3(1)

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Appropriation need not be an instantaneous act, it can be continuing

Answer 7

R v Hale (tied woman up after taking jewellery; continuing appropriation allowed them to be convicted of robbery)

Question 8

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

Answer 8

R v Adams

Question 9

Property

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Confidential information cannot fall within the definition of intangible property contained in s4(1)

Answer 10

Oxford v Moss

Question 11

Belonging to another

Answer 11

s5(1) - anyone having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest

Question 12

Abandoned property ceases to belong to another; but courts reluctant to find that it has been abandoned

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

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

Answer 13

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)

Question 14

It is possible to steal your own property

Answer 14

Turner (No 2)

Question 15

Property given to another for a particular purpose

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Legal obligation to use property for purpose

Answer 16

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

Question 17

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

Answer 17

R v Wain (fundraising - obligation to retain proceeds, not the exact notes and coins)

Question 18

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

Answer 18

AG’s Reference (No1 of 1983) - policewoman overpaid, under legal obligation to restore money as under s5(4) money also belonged to the police.

Question 19

Bank retained equitable interest in money mistakenly deposited into child’s account and so still belonged to bank

Answer 19

R v Shaddrock-Cigari

Question 20

Mr for theft

Answer 20

Dishonestly intends to permanently deprive

Question 21

s2 - not dishonest

Answer 21

• 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.

Question 22

s2 - no need for belief to be reasonable held; it only needs to be genuine

Answer 22

R v Robinson

Question 23

R v Ghost test:

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

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)

Answer 24

s2(2) TA

Question 25

Dishonest intent must be formed at a time when the goods belong to another

Answer 25

Edwards v Ddin

Question 26

Ownership of food passes when it is eaten

Answer 26

Corcoran v Whent

Question 27

Ownership of petrol passes when it is put in a petrol tank

Answer 27

In absence of MR from the outset, the appropriate charge it making off without payment

Question 28

Intention to permanently deprive

Answer 28

No requirement that owner is actually deprived of property permanently

Question 29

s6 should not be referred to where it is clear that the defendant does intend the owner to lose his property permanently

Answer 29

R v Lloyd

Question 30

s6(1) ITPD

Answer 30

Defendant has intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights = ITPD

Question 31

Treating the thing as his own to dispose - dictionary definition

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

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

Answer 32

R v Lloyd

R v Scott

R v Raphael

Question 33

s6(1) also covers rendering the property useless

Answer 33

DPP v J (broke headphones)

Question 34

D dealing with property in a way that he knows is risking its loss = ITPD

Answer 34

R v Fernandez (risky investment)

R v Mitchell (left car with hazard lights on - not risking loss nor dealing with definitely)

Question 35

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

Answer 35

R v Lloyd (films borrowed)

R v Beecham (returning railway tickets once journey completed)

Question 36

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

Answer 36

e.g. pledging O’s property as security for a loan

Question 37

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)

Answer 37

R v Velumyl