theft cases- mens rea

Question 1

R v Holden (1991)
-S.2(1)(a)

Answer 1

sum: took scrap tyres from his employer
sig: he genuinely believed he had a right to take them as an employee

Question 2

R v Robinson (1977)
-S.2(1)(a)

Answer 2

sum: fight over non-payment of debt. D kept money which fell onto floor from V.
sig: He genuinely believed he had a right to it due to the money being owed to him.

Question 3

R v Small (1987)
-S.2(1)(a) and S.2(1)(c)

Answer 3

sum: took car which had been abandoned for 2 weeks and key was inand only realised it may have been stolen when he tried to driive away and saw police lights chasing.
sig: he genuinely believed it was just left there and owner couldn’t be traced easily S.2(1)(c)

Question 4

what did Ivey v Genting casino (2017) and R v Pabon (2018) change to dishonestly ghosh test in criminal law?

Answer 4

removed subjective part of ghosh test and left just objective test in criminal law

Question 5

what did R v Barton & Booth (2020) change to dishonestly ghosh test?

Answer 5

following Ivey and Pabon cases we no longer require objective test.

Question 6

R v velumyl (1989)
-S.6 TA intention to permanently deprive
-liekly to be used in exa,

Answer 6

sum: took money from company safe to pay debts, was owed money and said he would repay.
sig: guilty as intended to permanently deprive company of those sepcific/particular bank notes.

Question 7

DPP v Lavender (1994)
-S.6 TA intention to permanently deprive

Answer 7

sum: moved doors from a council property to another council property
sig: guilty as doors still possession of council: “treating as his own to dispose regardless of pthers rights”

Question 8

R v Zerei (2012)
-S.6 TA intention to permanently deprive

Answer 8

sum: car taken and abandoned but left undamaged 1km away
sig: CA quashed robbery as no intent to permanently deprive

Question 9

R v Lloyd (1985)
-S.6 TA intention to permanently deprive

Answer 9

sum: projectionist at a cinema & secretly borrowed films & lent to friends to make illegal copies
sig: didn’t permanently deprive = not theft as he brought them back in same condition to be used as normal

Question 10

R v Easom (1971)
-S.6 TA intention to permanently deprive

Answer 10

sum: D rummaged in someones handbag but took nothing from them
sig: not sufficient enough evidence of intention to permanently deprive