Theft

Question 1

Definition of Theft

Answer 1

“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it…”

s. 1(1) Theft Act 1968

Question 2

Actus reus - appropriation (s. 3)

Answer 2

• Appropriation or conversion
• A right not all rights
  (Morris 1984 - Guy went to the supermarket and swopped prices -> Still enough to constitute theft)
• Appropriation with consent/title?
• Gomez (1993)
• > D signed off cheques, uncleared, though had consent of the manager.
• Hinks (2000)
• > D tricked someone to give him 50.000 Pound, even though consent was present, it wasnt seen as a gift by the House of Lords but as theft.

Question 3

Actus reus - appropriation (s.3)

Answer 3

• “Keeping of dealing with the property as owner”
• Theft is a finite act
• Ward J. in Atakpu (1994)
• Otherwise, it would be possible to convict a thief of theft of a silver teapot every time he uses it to make tea” - Glanville Williams
• Bona fide purchaser - s. 3(2)
• Wheeler (1990)
  (Obligation to report if you find out that your goods are stolen)

Question 4

Actus reus - property (s. 4)

Answer 4

• “Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.”
• Things in action
• e.g. bank accounts: Kohn (1979)
• Intangible property
• e.g. Quotas: A-G of Hong Kong v Chan Nai-Keung (1987)

Question 5

Actus reus - belonging to another (s. 5)

Answer 5

• “Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest.”
• s. 5(1)
• Simple enough?
• Marshall (1998)
• Turner (No. 2) (1971)
  (D used a spare key to “steal” own car from a garage where the bill hasn’t been paid yet)

Question 6

• Property received for a particular purpose
• s. 5(3)
• Positive obligation to return property received by mistake to the original owner
• s. 5(4)
• A-G´s Reference (No 1 of 1983) (1985)

Question 7

Mens rea - dishonesty (s. 2)

Answer 7

• s. 2(1) defines when a person is not dishonest:
  a) Belief that she has the legal right to deprive the owner of property (e.g. Terry 2001)
  b) Belief that the owner would have consented to the appropriation
  c) Belief that the owner could not be located by reasonable steps - Sylvester (1985)

Question 8

Ghosh (1982) test

mens rea

Answer 8

Was the action dishonest according to ordinary standards?

Yes / No (=not guilty)

-

If yes, did the defendant realize that reasonable people see that action as dishonest?

Yes = guilty / no = not guilty

Question 9

Critics of the Ghosh test

Answer 9

Challenged a couple of times.

But is compliant with Art. 7.

Subjective and Objective element

Uncertainty - depending on the jury

Robin Hood effect

Question 10

Mens rea - intention to permanently deprive (s. 6)

Answer 10

• Broad interpretation
• Ransom - Hall (1849)
• Property in a different form - Richards (1844)
• Pawning - Phetheon (1840)
• “for a period…making it equivalent to outright taking”
• s.6 (1)
• Velumyl (1989)