Theft (AO1) Flashcards
Theft is defined under which section and which act?
Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968
What is the definition of Theft?
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
Which section does dishonesty come under?
Section 2
Which section does Appropriation come under?
Section 3
Which section does property come under?
Section 4
Which section does belonging to another come under?
Section 5
Which section does intention to permanently deprive come under?
Section 6
What are the two elements of mens rea defined in the Theft Act 1968?
-Dishonesty
-Intention to permanently deprive
What are the three elements of actus reus defined in the Theft Act 1968?
-Appropriation
-Property
-Belonging to another
What does Section 3(1) state about appropriation?
“any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes where he has come by the property without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner”
What 7 actions would constitute as the rights of an owner?
-Selling the property
-Destroying the property
-Possessing the property
-Consuming the property
-Using the property
-Lending the property
-Hiring the property
How many rights of an owner must a thief do to appropriate?
just one or more
What was the decision under case: Morris (1983)?
The defendant assumed the rights of owner when he put a price label on the goods so there had been appropriation
What does the case of Morris (1983) show?
There does not have to be an assumption of all the rights of the owner, making convictions easier to secure
What was the decision in case Lawrence (1971)
The HofL held there had been appropriation as the consent was to the exact amount that should have been taken and no more
What was the decision in case: Hinks (2000)
The HofL held there had been appropriation even though the victim consented, as they had only consented through deception
What was the decision in case: Atakpu and Abrahams (1994)?
Appropriation occurs at one point in time. The theft occured in Germany and Belgium, keeping and driving them in the UK was not an appropriation
What does Section 3(1) say about a later assumption of a right?
There can be an appropriation where the D acquires property without stealing it, but then later decides to keep the property as its owner.
What does Section 4 define property as?
“Property includes money and all other property real or personal, including things in action and other intangible things”
What was the decision in case: Kelly and Lindsay (1998)
Body parts are not usually property that can be stolen. However, they are property if they are being used for medical science.
S4(1) States land can be stolen but only under which 3 circumstances?
-A trustee or personal representative takes land in breach of his duties
-Someone not in possession of the land severs anything forming part of the land from the land
-A tenant takes a fixture or structure from the land let to him
What is the type of property: Things in action?
A right which can be enforced against another person by an action in law. Property under the definition in S4. E.g. a cheque
What is the type of property: Other intangible things?
Other rights which have no physical presence but can be stolen under the Theft Act 1968, e.g. a patent.
What was the decision in case: Oxford v Moss (1979)
The D was not guilty as information is not property that can be stolen
Which case can Oxford v Moss (1979) be contrasted with? and why?
R v Akbar (2002), because in this case a teacher was convicted of theft after taking exam papers for her students
Can electricity be stolen?
It is intangible property which cannot be stolen, there is a separate offence under s11 Theft Act 1968 of dishonesty using electricity without due authority
Thing that cannot be stolen are set out in…
S4(3) and S4(4) of the Theft Act 1968
What things cannot be stolen?
Plants, flowers, fruit, fungi or foliage
Under which condition can plants, flowers, fruit, fungi or foliage be considered property?
If they are being picked with intention of selling for a reward or other commercial purpose
What does Section 4(4) say about wild creatures?
wild creatures tamed or untamed shall be regarded as property but a person cannot steal a wild creature that isn’t tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity
What is “belonging to another” defined as under Section 5(1) of the Theft Act 1968?
property belonging to any person who has possession or control of it, or whom has proprietary rights or interest in the property.
What was the decision in case: Turner (No 2)(1971)
The D was guilty of stealing his own car as it was in possession and control of the garage
What was the decision in case: Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates’ Court (2010)?
The court ruled the bags had not been abandoned and the delivery of the items would be complete when the charity shop was in possession
Where the D owns property and is in possession and control of property, he can still be guilty of stealing it if another person has a proprietary interest in it… what does a proprietary interest mean?
That the rightful owner of the property may have given the property into the possession and control of another person at the time, however they still retain a right in, or to, that property
What was the decision in case: Webster (2006)
Even thought the D had possession of the medal, it belonged to another as the military of defence had a proprietary interest
Section 5 defines situations where the D is acting dishonestly and has caused a loss to another or has made a gain, these are:
-Trust property
-Property received under an obligation s5(3)
-Property received by another’s mistake s5(4)
What was the decision in case: Davidge v Bunnett (1984)?
There was a legal obligation to deal with the money in a particular way and as she had not, she was guilty of theft
What was the decision in case: Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983)(1985)
There was an obligation to restore the money to the employer and the D was guilty of theft when she gained the dishonest intent not to pay the money back.
What does Section 1(2) state and what does it mean?
“It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit” This means that motive is irrelevant
What are the three situations which will not be dishonest under the Theft Act?
s2(1)(a)-He has an honest belief that he has a legal right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person
s2(1)(b)-He has an honest belief he would have the others consent to the appropriation
s2(1)(c)-He has an honest belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
In which case was the dishonesty test re-established? What was the decision?
Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)
-The supreme court re-defined dishonesty test as the previous test was “no longer good law”
What was the two-part test for dishonesty confirmed in case: R v Barton and Booth (2020)?
- What was the D’s state of knowledge or belief as to the facts?
- And was his conduct reasonable by the standards of the ordinary decent person?
What was decided in case: Velumyl (1989)
The CofA upheld the Ds theft conviction as he intended to permanently deprive the company of the exact same bank notes taken
In which case can borrowing amount to intent to permanently deprive?
If the item loses all, or a significant amount, of its value as a result of Ds borrowing of it.
What was decided in case: Lloyd (1985)
The D’s theft conviction was quashed as the film reels were returned in their ordinary state so he had no intention to permanently deprive
