Theft Flashcards
Theft Definition
“A person is guilty of the offence of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive them of it”
- s.1 (1) Theft Act 1968
Basic Intent Offence
Unlimited Fine +/ 7 years imprisonment
Theft Actus Reus
Theft Act 1968
s. 3 Appropriation
s. 4 Property
s. 5 Belonging to another
Theft Mens Rea
Theft Act 1968
s. 2 Dishonesty
s. 6 Intention to permanently deprive
Theft AR - Appropriation
Theft - S.3 Appropriation
R v Morris - D switched labels in a supermarket in order to pay less for an item - D assumed rights of ownership and therefore was a theft.
Oxford v Moss - D took an exam paper with the intention of returning it after studying it -Confidential information does not amount to intangible property
R v Lawrence - D was a taxi driver with a foreign passenger who did not understand the currency. D reached into the wallet and took way more than the fare was - D was only entitled to the fare and anything else was appropriation.
Pitham v Hehl - D sold furniture that did not belong to him - An appropriation had occurred as soon as the order to sell was placed.
Theft AR - Property
Theft - S.4 Property
Property is personal items, property isn’t wild plants, electricity or intangible items
Kelly and Lindsay - D took body part from RCS to draw for an art project - Property was not owned but it had a purpose therefore it was stealable
Theft AR - Belonging to Another
Theft - S.5 Belonging to Another
Property must be under the ownership of another person.
Turner No.2 - D picked up car from service without paying for it - Garage were exercising control over the car therefore it was not technically his to take back.
R v Hall - Travel Agent paid a deposit into wrong account, business collapsed and deposit was lost - D not liable for theft as there was no obligation for him to deal with the money in a certain way.
Davidge v Bunnett - D spent money meant for bills on xmas presents - D liable as there was a clear obligation on what the money was meant for.
Theft MR - Dishonesty
Theft - S.2 Dishonesty
D must have gone about obtaining the property in a way which an honest and reasonable person would deem as dishonest
R v Ghost - D claimed money for surgical operations he did not perform - Ghosh test: Jury decide whether the defendant’s actions were that of a reasonable and honest person.
Ivey v Genting Casinos - Poker player owed 7.7 million by casino who claimed he’d cheated his way to the winnings - Supreme Court ruled that if he had come about the winnings dishonestly, he was not entitled to them
Theft MR - Permanent Deprivation
Theft - S.6 Permanent Deprivation
D must intend to keep the property indefinitely and as if it was his to dispose of
R v Velumyl - D took money from company safe with intention to return amount on monday - Theft unless he returned the exact coins and notes he’d taken.
R v Lloyd - D took home films from cinema, copied them then returned them - No theft as he did not intend to permanently deprive the cinema of them.
