Theft - Criminal Law Flashcards
What is the definition of theft
The theft act 1968 says “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”
What are the 3 elements in the actus reus
Appropriates, property and belonging to another
What are the 2 elements in the men’s rea
Dishonestly and with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
What is the significance of the R v Pitham and Hehl case
It states that attempting to steal somebody else’s property is also theft.
What else is also considered theft
Any assumption of the rights of the owner including destroying property is theft. The offence also doesn’t have to amount to the physical stealing of the property
What does the theft act state about appropriation in regards to consent and consent without deception
- The theft act doesn’t state that appropriation has to be without the consent of the owner an example of this is the Lawrence v Commissioner for metropolitan police
- In R v Gomez theft was also interpreted as the act of using cheques known to be stolen to pay for goods
- In R v Hinks the defendant had technically obtained consent to appropriate property
- acquiring property such as hiring it and then deciding to sell it later also comes under the theft act
What does the theft act state about property
- Property was a very wide ranging definition and can include just about anything that can be owned both tangible and intangible as shown in the R v Kelly and Lindsay case
- The term real property is used for land and buildings
- Under section 4(1) land can be stolen but section 4(2) states that this can only be done under three circumstances:
- a personal representative takes land in breach of his duties
- someone not in possession of the land severing anything forming part of the land
- a tenant taking a structure from the land let to him
- a “thing in action” can also include a bank account or cheque
- In sec 4(3) and 4(4) things like plants and fungi growing wild along with wild animals are considered things that cannot be stolen
What does the theft act state about belonging to another
- This is very wide ranging because it is not always necessary to prove who the legal owner of the property is rather the person who is in control of it at that time
- In R v Turner the defendant was convicted of stealing his own car
- In R v Woodman the defendant was convicted of theft even though the owner was unaware that the property was even there in the first place
What is proprietary interest
- when a person owns and is in possession and control of property they can still be guilty of theft if somebody else has an interest in it shown in R v Webster
- s5 outlines other situations where the defendant acts dishonestly causing a loss to another - e.g trust property where the trustee steals it
What does the theft act state about property received under obligation
- s5(3) deals with situations where property is received under an obligation to deal with it in a particular way. If the obligation is unclear this cannot be theft as shown in R v Hall
- In R v klineberg and Marsden there was a very clear understanding that the money was to be used in a particular way
- There may also be a legal obligation in less formal situations as shown in Davidge v Bunnett
What does the theft act say about property received by mistake
-s5(4) deals with these obligations as shown in the attorney generals reference where there was a legal obligation to return the property
What does the theft act state about dishonesty
-s1(2) states that the motive of the defendant in appropriating the property is irrelevant. They don’t have to gain anything by it
What behaviour isn’t regarded as dishonest
Behaviour isn’t dishonest if:
- s2(1)(a) they have the right to deprive somebody of it in law on behalf of somebody else
- s2(1)(b) they have the others consent
- s2(1)(c) the owner of the property can’t be discovered by taking reasonable steps
- all of the above are based on D’s belief reasonable or otherwise
- if the jury decides that D had a genuine belief however unreasonable they must be found not guilty as shown in R v Holden and R v Robinson
What does the theft act state about someone willing to pay later
-s2(2) states that it is also theft if property is taken regardless of the owners wishes even if the intention is to pay later
What was the Ghosh test and how has it changed
- R v Ghosh led to a 2 question test
- First part is objective: was what was done dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people
- Second part is subjective: did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards
- In a 2017 civil case Ivey v Genting casinos Ltd the Supreme Court effectively removed the second part of the Ghosh test
