Theft (AO1)

Question 1

Theft is defined under which section and which act?

Answer 1

Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968

Question 2

What is the definition of Theft?

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Which section does dishonesty come under?

Answer 3

Section 2

Question 4

Which section does Appropriation come under?

Answer 4

Section 3

Question 5

Which section does property come under?

Answer 5

Section 4

Question 6

Which section does belonging to another come under?

Answer 6

Section 5

Question 7

Which section does intention to permanently deprive come under?

Answer 7

Section 6

Question 8

What are the two elements of mens rea defined in the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 8

-Dishonesty
-Intention to permanently deprive

Question 9

What are the three elements of actus reus defined in the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 9

-Appropriation
-Property
-Belonging to another

Question 10

What does Section 3(1) state about appropriation?

Answer 10

“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”

Question 11

What 7 actions would constitute as the rights of an owner?

Answer 11

-Selling the property
-Destroying the property
-Possessing the property
-Consuming the property
-Using the property
-Lending the property
-Hiring the property

Question 12

How many rights of an owner must a thief do to appropriate?

Answer 12

just one or more

Question 13

What was the decision under case: Morris (1983)?

Answer 13

The defendant assumed the rights of owner when he put a price label on the goods so there had been appropriation

Question 14

What does the case of Morris (1983) show?

Answer 14

There does not have to be an assumption of all the rights of the owner, making convictions easier to secure

Question 15

What was the decision in case Lawrence (1971)

Answer 15

The HofL held there had been appropriation as the consent was to the exact amount that should have been taken and no more

Question 16

What was the decision in case: Hinks (2000)

Answer 16

The HofL held there had been appropriation even though the victim consented, as they had only consented through deception

Question 17

What was the decision in case: Atakpu and Abrahams (1994)?

Answer 17

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

Question 18

What does Section 3(1) say about a later assumption of a right?

Answer 18

There can be an appropriation where the D acquires property without stealing it, but then later decides to keep the property as its owner.

Question 19

What does Section 4 define property as?

Answer 19

“Property includes money and all other property real or personal, including things in action and other intangible things”

Question 20

What was the decision in case: Kelly and Lindsay (1998)

Answer 20

Body parts are not usually property that can be stolen. However, they are property if they are being used for medical science.

Question 21

S4(1) States land can be stolen but only under which 3 circumstances?

Answer 21

-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

Question 22

What is the type of property: Things in action?

Answer 22

A right which can be enforced against another person by an action in law. Property under the definition in S4. E.g. a cheque

Question 23

What is the type of property: Other intangible things?

Answer 23

Other rights which have no physical presence but can be stolen under the Theft Act 1968, e.g. a patent.

Question 24

What was the decision in case: Oxford v Moss (1979)

Answer 24

The D was not guilty as information is not property that can be stolen

Question 25

Which case can Oxford v Moss (1979) be contrasted with? and why?

Answer 25

R v Akbar (2002), because in this case a teacher was convicted of theft after taking exam papers for her students

Question 26

Can electricity be stolen?

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Thing that cannot be stolen are set out in...

Answer 27

S4(3) and S4(4) of the Theft Act 1968

Question 28

What things cannot be stolen?

Answer 28

Plants, flowers, fruit, fungi or foliage

Question 29

Under which condition can plants, flowers, fruit, fungi or foliage be considered property?

Answer 29

If they are being picked with intention of selling for a reward or other commercial purpose

Question 30

What does Section 4(4) say about wild creatures?

Answer 30

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

Question 31

What is "belonging to another" defined as under Section 5(1) of the Theft Act 1968?

Answer 31

property belonging to any person who has possession or control of it, or whom has proprietary rights or interest in the property.

Question 32

What was the decision in case: Turner (No 2)(1971)

Answer 32

The D was guilty of stealing his own car as it was in possession and control of the garage

Question 33

What was the decision in case: Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates' Court (2010)?

Answer 33

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

Question 34

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?

Answer 34

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

Question 35

What was the decision in case: Webster (2006)

Answer 35

Even thought the D had possession of the medal, it belonged to another as the military of defence had a proprietary interest

Question 36

Section 5 defines situations where the D is acting dishonestly and has caused a loss to another or has made a gain, these are:

Answer 36

-Trust property -Property received under an obligation s5(3) -Property received by another's mistake s5(4)

Question 37

What was the decision in case: Davidge v Bunnett (1984)?

Answer 37

There was a legal obligation to deal with the money in a particular way and as she had not, she was guilty of theft

Question 38

What was the decision in case: Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1983)(1985)

Answer 38

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.

Question 39

What does Section 1(2) state and what does it mean?

Answer 39

"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

Question 40

What are the three situations which will not be dishonest under the Theft Act?

Answer 40

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

Question 41

In which case was the dishonesty test re-established? What was the decision?

Answer 41

Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) -The supreme court re-defined dishonesty test as the previous test was "no longer good law"

Question 42

What was the two-part test for dishonesty confirmed in case: R v Barton and Booth (2020)?

Answer 42

1. What was the D's state of knowledge or belief as to the facts? 2. And was his conduct reasonable by the standards of the ordinary decent person?

Question 43

What was decided in case: Velumyl (1989)

Answer 43

The CofA upheld the Ds theft conviction as he intended to permanently deprive the company of the exact same bank notes taken

Question 44

In which case can borrowing amount to intent to permanently deprive?

Answer 44

If the item loses all, or a significant amount, of its value as a result of Ds borrowing of it.

Question 45

What was decided in case: Lloyd (1985)

Answer 45

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