Theft and Related Offences Flashcards
Definition Of Theft
Section 1 Theft Act 1968
Definition
The dishonest appropriation
of property
belonging to another
with the intention
to permanently deprive
the other of the property.
Elements
I. Dishonest
2. Appropriation
3. Of property
4. Belonging to another
5. With the intention to permanently
deprive the other of the property
Dishonesty
Section 2 Theft Act 1968
What is Not
Dishonest?
3 beliefs
Section 2 Theft Act 1968
3 Beliefs
A person will not be
regarded as dishonest
when appropriating
property belonging to
another— if they
subjectively held any of
3 beliefs.
Subjective Test — What Is Going
On In Their Head?
* Provided the subjective
belief was honestly held -
then the defendant will not
have behaved dishonestly.
*An honestly held belief can
be mistaken.
Belief 1 - Right In Law
They had a right in law to deprive the other of
the property - on behalf of either:
*Themselves; or
* Any other person.
Belief 2 — Owner’s Consent
If the owner knew of:
* The appropriation; and
* Its circumstances — (i.e. why it was taken), ..
.they would have consented.
Belief 3 -
The owner
Lost Items
cannot be discovered
by taking reasonable
steps.
No Tracable Beneficiaries Of
Estates
Trustees & Personal Representatives —
cannot rely on the “owner cannot be
discovered by taking reasonable steps”
belief to retain property from an estate if
a beneficiary cannot be found.
If so — the property reverts to the Crown.
Willingness To Pay?
The appropriation of property belonging to
another may be deemed to be dishonest
despite a willingness to pay for the
property
Further Test If None Of
The 3 Beliefs Can Be
Established?
Ivey (Appellant) v Genting Casinos (tJK) Ltd t/a
Crockfords (Respondent)
12017) UKSC 67 On appeal from 12016) EWCA crv 1093
Updated Test
* The fact-finding tribunal must
ascertain the actual (subjective)
state of the individual’s
knowledge or belief as to the facts;
and
* Then determine whether their
conduct was honest or dishonest
by the (objective) standards of
ordinary decent people.
Key Change
There is no longer
a requirement
to prove that the defendant
must appreciate
that what they have done
is, by those standards,
dishonest.
LEGAL UPDATE - DEFINITION OF DISHONESTY
THE HISTORIC PRINCIPLES OF R v GHOSH
If the criteria of section 2 does not assist in determining dishonesty (i.e. none of the 3 beliefs are present) – historically the judge used to apply the 2 stage test derived from the case of R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053:
STEP 1 - OBJECTIVE LIMB
Whether what was done was dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?
If the jury decide no – the jury must acquit.
If the jury decide yes – the jury will proceed to step 2.
STEP 2 - SUBJECTIVE LIMB
Whether the defendant realised by the standards of a reasonable and honest person - that what they were doing was dishonest?
If the jury decide no – the test would fail at the second hurdle and the jury must acquit.
If the answer is yes - then the defendant will have behaved dishonestly.
LEGAL UPDATE - THE SECOND STEP OF R v GHOSH HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED
Ivey (Appellant) v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 67 On appeal from [2016] EWCA Civ 1093
The Supreme Court in Ivey has updated the test in R v Ghosh – and has removed the second step of the test – to bring the test in line with that used in civil cases.
The Supreme Court held that the second leg of the rule adopted in R v Ghosh had serious problems, as the less a defendant’s standards conform to society’s expectations, the less likely they are to be held criminally responsible for their
behaviour.
The law should not excuse those who make a mistake about contemporary standards of honesty, a purpose of the criminal law is to set acceptable standards of behaviour.
The test is now that used in civil actions – i.e. just step 1 (above).
The fact-finding tribunal must ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts and then determine whether their conduct was honest or dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people.
There is no longer a requirement to prove that the defendant must appreciate that what they have done is, by those standards, dishonest.
Appropriation
Section 3 Theft Act 1968
Definition Of An Appropriation
The assumption
by the person
of the rights of the owner
i.e. treating the property as their own.
Must Property Be Taken In Order
For It To Be Appropriated?
No
Swapping price tags on items
= appropriation
Does The Assumption Of The
Rights Of The Owner Have To Be
Immediate?
No
Example 1 — Borrowing Item &
Later Decide To Keep It
Borrow item
= no initial appropriation
Later decide not to give the
item back
= subsequent appropriation
Example 2 — Accidentally Leave
Shop With Unpaid Item & Once You
Realise Decide Not To Return Item
Mistaken unpaid item in trolley
= no initial appropriation
Later realise mistake and decide
not to return the item
= subsequent appropriation
Is A Gain Necessary?
No
Duration Of The Appropriation
An appropriation can be for
a very short period of time.
Appropriation Can Take Place
Even When The Victim Consents
R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510
R v Gomez [1993] AC 442
Appropriation
Exception
3 steps
3 Steps
An appropriation will not take place where:
* Step I - There has been a purchase for value;
* Step 2 - The person was acting in good faith; and
* Step 3 - The person assumes the rights of the
owner.
Acting In Good Faith? - Example
Property
3 categories
Section 4 Theft Act 1968
Category 1
Money
Category 2
All
other property
Real
(Land and things forming part of the land)
Buildings
Personal
(i.e. moveable things that can be owned)
Things in action
Other intangible property
e.g. Gas
Category 3
Items that
cannot be physically stolen.
e.g. trade secrets.
Examinations
Examination Paper Itself
The actual paper
that an examination
is written upon
property
and can be stolen
by appropriating the
physical script itself.
The Information Contained In
The Examination
The information contained
within the examination paper
(i.e. the questions posed) is
not property.
Memorising or
photographing the contents
= not appropriation
Cheques
Paper = Property
The actual paper
a cheque
is written upon
pay
is property
and can be stolen.
Contents Of Bank
Accounts
R v Kohn (1979) 69 Cr App R 395
Account In Credit
Funds in credit
can be stolen
from the account
holder.
Account Within The Limit Of An
Approved Overdraft Facility
Funds within
the approved overdraft
limit
can be stolen
from the account holder.
Appropriation Of Funds Which Have
Exceeded An Approved Overdraft
Limit
There will not
be a theft
from the
account holder.
Confidential
Personal Data
Can Confidential Personal Data
Be Stolen?
No
Confidential personal
data
is not property
and cannot be stolen.
Can Land Be Stolen?
Section - (c) Theft Act 1968
General Rule &
3 Exceptions
General Rule
Land cannot
be stolen.
3 Exceptions To The General
Rule
There are
3 exceptional
circumstances
where land
can be stolen:
Exception 1 - Trustees / PRs
Trustees or Personal
Representatives or someone
in a position of trust to
dispose of land belonging to
another
can steal land - by dealing with
the land in breach of a
confidence
by dishonestly disposing of it.
Exception 2 - Persons Not In
Possession
A person not in
possession of the
land - can steal the
land by severing it.
Strangers sever!
Exception 3 — Tenants
A tenant in possession
- can steal fixtures and structures.
Can Things Growing
Wild On Any Land Be
Stolen?
Section 4(3) Theft Act 1968
General Rule & Exception
General Rule
It is not an offence of theft - to pick any:
Mushrooms
Flowers
Fruit
Foliage
.growing wild on any land.
Exception
It will be an offence - if the mushrooms, fruit,
flowers, or foliage growing wild - are picked for
either:
* Sale;
* Reward; or
* Other commercial purpose.
Focus On The Point At Which The
Intention Was Formed
NB the purpose of profit must be present
at the time of picking
Can Wild Creatures
Be Stolen?
Section 4 Theft Act 1968
General Rule & 3 Exceptions
General Rule
It will not be possible
to steal a wild animal.
Exception 1
The wild animal has been tamed.
Exception 2
The wild animal is ordinarily
kept in captivity.
Exception 3
The wild animal has been either:
* Reduced Into possession: or
* Is in the course of being reduced into
possession; and
possession has not been either:
* Lost; or
* Abandoned.
Are Corpses
Property?
General Rule & Exception
General Rule
A corpse
is not property.
Doodeward v Spence
[1908] 6 CLR 406
Exception
A corpse will become property - if it has been
changed in some way - by either:
Dissection
Amputation
Preservation
Exception
Fluid Specimens Can Be Stolen
Belonging To
Another
Section 5 Theft Act 1968
Who Will Property Belong To
Property belongs to the person who has either:
*A proprietary right or interest in it;
* Possession of it; or
*Control of it.
3 Owners?
Owner
>
Proprietary
interest
Technician
>
Possession
Manager
>
Control
The Duration Of Possession Or
Control
Possession or control
need not be permanent
it can be for only a
defined period.
R v Kelly (1998) 3 All RE 741
Is It Necessary To Prove The
Specific Individual Who Owns The
Property?
No
It is only necessary to prove that
the property belonged to
somebody
other than the accused
When Must The Property “Belong
To Another”?
The property must
“belong to another”
at the time
of the appropriation.
Making Off Without Payment —
NOT Theft
Duties In Respect Of
Property Held On
Behalf Of Another
Section 5(3) Theft Act 1968
Where a person recejves property either
* From another - (eg a solicitor handling a house deposit for a
client). or
* On account of another
…and is under a (legal) obligation to them to:
* Retain;
* Deal with
…that property or its proceeds in a particular way (e.g. transfer
the funds to the seller’s solicitor) — then the property will belong
to the other (i.e. to the client).
Permission To
Prosecute
- Theft Of Property
Belonging To A
Defendant’s Spouse Or
Civil Partner
General Rule & Exceptions
General Rule
— DPP Consent Required
Prosecution for the offences of ether
* Theft:
* Robbery: or
* Burglary by stealing
agatnst a defendant who has stolen property belonging to ether
* Ther or
* Thetr partner
may only be Instituted With the consent of the DPP.
Exception 1
— No DPP Consent Required
By virtue of any
judicial decree or order
-the defendant and their
spouse
are at the time of the offence,
under no obligation to
cohabit.
Exception 2
— No DPP Consent Required
An order is in force
providing for the separation of
the defendant and their civil
partner.
Exception
Persons Charged Jointly With The
Defendant
The consent of the DPP
will not be required to
prosecute
persons jointly charged
with the spouse or civil partner
of the victim.
Intention To
Permanently Deprive
Section 6 Theft Act 1968
3 situations
Treating The Property
As Their Own To
Dispose Of Regardless
Of The Owner’s Rights
Situation 1
R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299
A lends fridge to B
B installed into their own kitchen
DPP v J [2002] EWHC 291
A takes B’s property
and deliberately
renders it useless
(i.e. breaks it)
before returning it to B.
R v Coffey [1987] Crim LR 498
Holding property to ransom.
A holds B’s property
and threatens not to return it
unless B makes a payment to A.
The offence is complete
as soon as the ransom threat is made
(as the property may not be returned)
Borrowing Beyond The
Scope Of The Agreed
Terms
— i.e. The Borrowing Or Lending Is For A
Period & In Circumstances Making It
Equivalent To An Outright Taking Or Disposal
e.g. season ticket
Parting With Property
Under A Condition For
Its Return That They
May Not Be Able To
Perform
Example
Borrows lawnmower
Pawns it
Offence complete at the time of pawning
(i.e. parting)
Receiving Property
By Mistake
Section 5(4) Theft Act 1968
Where a person receives property
by another’s mistake
and they are legally obliged
(NB - not just morally obliged) to restore it
to the person who made the mistake
- failure to do so will form an intention to
permanently deprive the other Of that property.
A makes mistake
B receives property by mistake
B is legally obliged to restore to A the property received
by mistake
Whose Mistake?
A person IS only under an
obligation to restore property
received by virtue of another
person’s mistake.
They are not obliged to return
property received by virtue Of
ther own mistake.
Burglary
Section 9(1)(a)
Theft Act 1968
Intent Offence
- A person enters a:
- Building. or
- Part Of a building
- As a trespasser * With the intent (NB — the offence is complete
at this pant) - to either: - Steal anything in the building:
- Inflict GBH on any person in the building; or
- Do unlawful damage to either:
- The building; or
- Anything in the building.
What Is Excluded From The
Intention To Steal?
Electricity (no)
Gas (yes)
TWOC (no)
What If Having Entered The Building
As A Trespasser With The Intent To
Steal The Building Was Actually
Bare And There Was Nothing
Capable Of Being Stolen?
Offence complete
- Intent offence!
What If Having Entered The
Building As A Trespasser With
The Intent To Cause GBH - There
Is Nobody In The Building?
Offence complete
- Intent offence!
Enters
The accused has crossed a boundary
Boundary 1
The threshold
between the
perimeter and the inside
of a building.
Boundary 2
The threshold between
separate rooms
inside a building.
Boundary 3
The threshold between a cordoned-off area to
which access is prohibited and an area to which
access is allowed within the same room