Theft and Fraud Flashcards
Lawrence
Foreign student did not speak English very well and took a taxi; correct fare was 50p; he offered £1, defendant intimated it was insufficient so student offered his wallet and defendant took a further £6; charged with theft. H of L held was appropriation - Section 3(1) of the TA 1968 did not contain the words ‘without the consent of the owner’ therefore followed that consent irrelevant.
RATIO: consent of the owner is irrelevant for appropriation.
DPP v Gomez
Defendant was an assistant manager at an electrical goods shop; accepted 2 stolen cheques from customer which he knew were stolen; manager instructed him to confirm with the bank that they were acceptable and he pretended he did; manager authorized transaction; Defendant charged with theft convicted – appealed – H of L agreed with decision in Morris that only needed to assume one of the rights of the owner for it to be an appropriation. Question in morris of whether had to be unauthorized act was unnecessary and therefore obiter.
RAITO: Consent of the owner is irrelevant for appropriation (confirming Lawrence); it is sufficient for the defendant to have assumed only on of the rights of the owner; not all (confirming part of Morris)
R v Hinks
Defendant befriended a man who was described as being of limited intelligence; over some months, man drew £60,000 from his savings account, which was deposited to defendant’s account; defendant charged with theft and convicted. Appeal to H of L – held:
RATIO: Acquisition of an indefeasible title to property is capable of amounting to an appropriation (i.e receiving a valid gift can amount to appropriation)
R v Morris
Defendant switched price labels on 2 pieces of meat when in super market; held that act of switching price labels amounted to an appropriation of the meat as it was owners (supermarkets) right to decide what price to sell goods.
RAITO: Hof L decided appropriation was:- an unauthorized act which adversely interfered with or usurps any one right of an owner
An assumption of any one right of an owner amounts to appropriating; it is not necessary to appropriate all the right of the owner.
Note: also held that appropriation was an act which adversely interfered with or usurps ‘any right of an owner’ and which is unauthorized – this was reversed in DPP v Gomez
R v Biggs
Defendant’s aunt and uncle (reids) were selling their home and buying another closer to defendant; defendant sent a letter of authority signed by the Reids to conveyancers telling them to send a sum of money to solicitors acting for the vendors of the Reids’ new house; done and new house vested in Defendant and her father. Charged with theft – reids argues consent was induced by fraud as thought money was to ensure title was transferred to them. Convicted appealed – C of A quashed – D caused relatives to perform an act – not appropriation but would have been if did it herself.
RATIO: Appropriation must involve some physical contact with property; causing victim to use the property in a way that is beneficial of the defendant is not sufficient.
R v Atakpu
Defendants arrested driving cars which had been hired abroad by using false documents; accused of intention to disguise cars and sell the in England and convicted of agreement to steal; held on appeal that all elements of theft had been made out when cars initially hired; later dealings could not found a charge of theft
RATIO: Once the defendant has stolen property (appropriating it with full MR) a later assumption of rights by him will not amount to another theft of property.
Prosecution argued appropriation was continuing – C of A accepted that there could be situations where the appropriation was a continuing one – Jury asked to apply its common sense as to when appropriation ended. Court would have to decide if theft was instantaneous or continuous – question of fact for jury.
R v Smith, Plummer and Haines
Defendants used violence of drug dealer to take his heroin without payment; argued that drugs did not constitute property
RAITO: Personal property means any tangible object that is not real property, for example cars, books, televisions, furniture, jewellery, clothes and even prohibited drugs unlawfully in the victim’s possession
Chan Man Sin v R
D was a company accountant who forged company cheques. Cheques used to take money out of the company’s accounts and pay into other accounts controlled by D. convicted of theft – argued had not appropriated.
Privy Council disagreed – found bank owed debt to company and this was a thing in action. If balance was reduced company had right to sue the bank to recover its losses. D’s had appropriated by dealing with the company’s account. Assumed rights of owner by drawing, presenting and negotiating cheques. Account was thing in action therefore was property.
Property includes things in action – this means intangible property capable of being enforced by legal action (credit balance of another’s account, another person’s overdraft facility, IP rights etc)
R v Navvabi
D knew bank was overdrawn but continued to use bank card to support cheques. Charged with theft. Held D was not guilty as he dealt only with his own account, so he had not assumed the rights of an owner over someone else’s things in action.
(would be guilty under Fraud act)
Oxford v Moss
Defendant went into examination office, read examination paper and replaced it in cabinet where he had found it; held not to be theft as there was not intention to permanently deprive university of the paper, and the only thing he could have taken was the information on the paper
RATIO: confidential information is no property within the meaning of the TA 1968
Low v Blease
Defendant entered premises as a trespasser and made a telephone call; accused of theft
RATIO: Electricity is not property and therefore cannot be stolen under TA 1968
R v Tuner [No.2]
Defendant took his car to garage for repairs then removed his car without paying for them; argued he could not be guilty of appropriating his own property; held on appeal that the garage lawfully had control of the car and had a lien over the car
RAITO: A legal owner can be guilty of stealing his own property (where it also belongs to another)
DPP v Huskinson
D received £479 housing benefit but only paid £200 to landlord spent rest on himself. Charged with theft. Divisional court held s5(3) did not apply as there was no legal obligation to deal with the money in a particular way.
R v Hall
Defendant was a travel agent; received money from various clients to pay for fights and paid the money into his general business account; flights were not booked and no money was refunded; held he had not committed theft in that he was under the duty to buy his clients their tickets in due course, not obliged to use the money they had specifically given him
RATIO: For s5(3) to apply, ownership of property remains with the person who hands it over; this will be the case where the accused is under a legal or contractual obligation to use the property in a specific way.
R v Wain
C of A upheld conviction of the D who misappropriated money which he had raised for charity and collected in a special bank account. Transferred it to his own account. Handed cheque to charity drawn on his account, but cheque was not met and insufficient funds in account. Charged with theft. Held D was under obligation to retain at least proceeds if not actual notes and coins. Even after transfer money belonged to the charity by virtue of s5(3)
