theft cases- actus reus Flashcards
summarise and significance
R v Morris (1983)
- appropriation
(likely to be used in exam)
sum: switched labels on items in a shop, was appropriation of the right of the owner to put a price label on the goods in their shop.
sig: important for establishing that the assumption doesn’t have to be about all of the rights the owner but can be any of the rights
R v Piham & Hehl (1977)
- appropriation
(likely to be used in exam)
sum: D’s assumed right to sell friends furniture online while their friend was in prison
sig: you don’t have to be in possession of the item but as soon as you advertise it to sell it amounts to appropriation
Lawrence v commissioner for metropolitan police (1971)
- appropriation
sum: taxi driver took money from wallet with permission of owner but assumed the right of the owner and took more than he should of (£6 instead of 50p)
sig: he had consent but still considered appropriation as he assumed he had the right to take more money
R v Gomez (1993)
- appropriation
sum: a shop assistant who used stolen checks to trick a shop manager into selling goods
sig: an act done with consent of the owner can still amount to appropriation as it is dishonest appropriation
R v Hinks (2000)
- appropriation
sum: D took money & gifts from the vulnerable adult she was caring for that he offered her
sig: receiving money and goods from vulnerable adult, still amounts to appropriation even though he knew he was gifting and a gift is legal in civil law
R v Vinall (2011)
- appropriation
sum: took bikes with force and abandoned bike 50m away from where D found it
sig: taking and abandoning the bike showed they assumed the right of the owner and took it which is appropriation
R v Mazo (1997)
- appropriation
sum: took gifts and money off vulnerable employer
sig: took advantage of employer with deteriorating state of mind but not guilty of appropriation as valid gift had been made
Oxford v Moss (1979)
- intangible property
(likely to be used in exam
sum: someone broke into exam papers and stole information to give/cheat
sig: exam q’s not deemed to be intangible property
R v Kelly & Lindsay (1998)
- personal property
sum: stole a dead body for their medical course
sig: CA held that although a dead body wouldn’t amount to property, if the parts have acquired different attributes as to make them suitable for teaching or exhibition then they are property
R v Turner (1971)
- belonging to another: S.5 possession or control
sum: stole his own car before he had paid from garage he had it serviced at
sig: can be convicted of stealing own property as he didn’t pay (proprietary right of garage)
R v Rostron
- belonging to another: S.5 possession or control
sum: removed players lost golf balls from the lake at night and resold them
sig: if lost they are still owned by the loser so it is theft, however if they were abandoned then it would have not been theft
R v Woodman (1974)
- belonging to another: S.5 possession or control
sum: scrap metal left on D’s site after being sold and collected, still possession of new owner
sig: D guilty of theft by keeping the metal he no longer had a proprietary right to after selling
R (Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates Court (2010)
- belonging to another: S.5 possession or control
sum: D took bags from charity shop from outside front doors and from bin outside back of it
sig: found guilty because bags out front has been abandoned but they were still the proprietary right of the owner who left them as they intended to transfer the right to the charity shop. Bags out the bag theft as it is still property of the charity shop
R v Dyke & Munro (2001)
- belonging to another: S.5 possession or control
sum: charity street collection D & M kept money. Judge originally directed jury that guilty of theft from stealing from person or persons unknowns as the person intended for money to transfer proprietary right to charity
sig: found guilty but judge found incorrect as when people give money they are no longer in possession
R v Webster (2006)
- belonging to another: S.5 possession or control
- S.5 (4) property by mistake
sum: sold second medal he has received by mistake
sig: guilty as ministry of defence had proprietary interest and he was aware he needed to make restoration and not deprive the ministry
R v Hall (1975)
- S.5 (3): property received under an obligation
sum: travel agent given deposit for flights but never arranged tickets and couldn’t give money back
sig: theft quashed by CA as no obligation to deal with it in a certain way
Dadvidge v Bennett (1984)
- S.5 (3): property received under an obligation
(likely to be used in exam)
sum: spent money given to her by flatmates for gas bill on other items
sig: guilty as they were flatmates who transferred proprietary right to be dealt with in a certain way
R v Wain (1995)
- S.5 (3): property received under an obligation
sum: raised money for charity and paid into own account with permission of charity but wrote a cheque and had insufficient funds
sig: CA found them guilty as money credited to his own account remained property of another under S.5 (3)
R v Klineberg & Marsden (1999)
- S.5 (3): property received under an obligation
sum: money lent to buy timeshares in Lanzarote and money to be paid into trust account
sig: guilty as paid only £235 of £50,000 into trust account
Attorney Generals ref (No1 of 1983)
- S.5 (4): property received by mistake
sum: police officer was overpaid, failed to alert anyone or money back
sig: guilty as CA ruled D under an obligation to make restoration. There was dishonest intention not to make restoration, all elements of theft were present
R v Gikes (1972)
- S.5 (4): property received by mistake
sum: bookmaker mistakenly overpaid on a bet, D realised overpayment but failed to return extra winnings
sig: ownership of money has been passed to D but this section of TA held D not guilty as there is no legal obligation in gambling to restore property
