Theft Criminal Law Flashcards
Definition of Theft
Definition of theft s.1(1) Theft Act 1968 - A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and thief and steal shall be construed accordingly
Element of the claim
Actus Reus
1.) Appropriation
2.) Property
3.) Belonging to Another
Mens Rea
4.) Dishonesty
5.) With Intention to permanently Deprive
Appropriation
Assuming the rights of the owner
Section 3(1) -> Assuming any one right of the owner
Pitham and Hehl [1977] -> Friends sold other furniture = Appropriation
Morris (1984) - Assumption of any right - switching price tags
S 3(2) Bona Fide purchaser does not amount to appropriation
Lawrence -> Consent is irrelevant -> C opened his wallet to D to take what he needed
Gomez -> Consent is irrelevant -> Tricked manager into accepting fake checks
Gallaso -> Even holding someone else’s money for them amount to appropriation
Case of Hinks
Defendant befriended victim who was described as naive. For 6 months, Defendant had been taking victim to cashpoint and got him to withdraw 300 everyday on a daily basis. D accumulated 60,000 pounds in total roughly. Could this be considered as appropriation when she received the cash she became the owner. Lawrence reaffirmed-> Consent is completely irrelevant. She became the owner of that money, how does that make sense? In civil law she had the right over the money. CoA found her guilty and HoL dismissed. Mazo overruled.
Against Hinks
Interferes with the rule of law. Rule of law deals with certainty
R v Hinks -> Lord Hutton dissented whole of act should be construed holistically. We should add element of dishonesty/adversity into the appropriation. BUT
Problematic cases if appropriation becomes so broad where the acts reuse becomes irrelevant then surely theft is based on only mens rea. Moral blameworthiness, does the acts reuse really lose its meaning, we criminalise people for their dishonesty.
Theft but no stolen goods - Technical issues - how is one appropriating property ‘belonging to another’
Very broad offence are we punishing for a moral basis and dishonesty alone: according to Lord Hobhouse
For Hinks
Hinks protects vulnerable people from abuse (Garnder, 1993).
Certainty needs to co-exist with other principles with honesty, you could have been honest you got a first.
Problematic cases if appropriation becomes so broad where the acts reuse becomes irrelevant then surely theft is based on only mens rea. Moral blameworthiness, does the acts reuse really lose its meaning, we criminalise people for their dishonesty.
Lord Steyn thinks the broadness is necessary, this does not mean the innocent ones would be persecuted. Additional elements would restrict the scope of theft. You could give me a gift which I could be liable for accepting. Dishonesty is important then. So conduct is uncertain.
Law is simplified - anything will be appropriation in criminal law.
Property
S.4(1) cannot steal land except where
Trustee breach
S.4(2) Land NO, but if anything forming a part of the land that is severed could form a part of the land
A TENANT APPROPRIATES WHOLE PART OF FIXTURE OR STRUCTURE LET TO BE USED WITH LAND
Examples of Property
Illegal Property - Smith [2011] -> illegal drugs still property
Things in action - Kohn [1997] - “Things in action” = legal rights you can enforce, like bank balances or credit.
Intangible property - Chai Mai Keung, Oxford Moss, but you can not steal services (like a taxi journey or manicure)
Human Body Parts - Generally NO BUT
Kelly [1998] (body for medical school + Yearworth [2009] -> sperm (for spermbank) Did not used to be considered as property but these cases show the contrary if you exercise skill or are used for specific purposes.
Belonging to Another
S 5(1) Any proprietary right or interest. It means property can still belong to someone if they own it, even if they do not have it with them. S5(2) 5-(5)
Rostron and Collinson - Trespassed onto golf course and jumped into the lake and started picking up lost golf balls from course - Charged
Woodman - Landowner possess contents of their building. Owner of this process had a lot of scrap metal in this property and was not using them and sold them. Defendant took the remaining scrap metal. Even though the original owner had no interest in the scrap it still counts as theft
Marshall -> D purchased used tickets and would re-sell to others -> He purchased the tickets and were his. Behind the ticket - it says ownership of TFL. Could it have been reasonably interpreted by someone that TFL owns the ticket.
Abandoned Property is fine but as long as it is genuinely abandoned
Williams v Philips -> People who collected your rubbish stole the rubbish, as people drop the rubbish outside their house. Until the council pick it up then it is the property of the council. D argued that the property no longer wanted the rubbish
Turner (No2) D stole his own car -> decided not to pay for services -> In the meantime, the garage were bailees at will. They had a bailment agreement with the original owner so for the original owner needs to pay to get his car back. Meaning for you to get it back you have to pay. Ownership right towards the garage. This not very well accepted
Meredith [1973] -> D’s car picked up and due to illegal parking. Had to pay to get the car back. Bailee as above. However, opposite conviction and charge. It still belonged to him despite payment
Hall and Wain
Hall [1973] -> Travel agent paid money in a general bank account to book tickets. Travel Agent did not use the money to pay for the tickets but for own expenses. General account so they could have done whatever they wanted. It was not a specific account for which they had to use it differently
Wain [1995] The defendant raised money for charity through a telethon.
He received donations on the charity’s behalf.. He paid the money into his own bank account, then used it for himself. How you use the money affects whether you have committed theft
Dishonestly
Subjective: GIlks [1972] Objective: Feely [1973] (reasonable person), Ghosh [1982] - up until 2017.
Currently Ivy Test Of Dishonesty
It is not dishonest where:
2(1)(a): D appropriates believing he has the legal right to deprive the other
R v Terry -> belief does not have to be reasonable, man tried to get bicycle back although it was not his back (no issue)
Bernhard -> does not have to be an accurate understanding of the law
2(1)(b) believes he would have others consent
R v Holden -> Working at quick fit, used some used tires -> all the other employees take the tires he just wants to take the tires like everyone else. Does not have to be reasonable but just an honest belief.
2(1) (c) D believes the owner could not be found through reasonable steps
S(2)(2): it May be dishonest despite the fact he is willing to pay for it. Leaving 30 pounds for a chair on the table.
Intention to Permanently Deprive
Example: D take V’s bracelet intending to keep it. Later returns it after discovering sentimental value (Liable)
Example: D takes V’s bracelet intending to return it. Later she changer her mind and keeps it. (Not liable)
Generally, D must intend to permanently deprive other of property. However, the intention to deprive temporarily generally is not theft. But there are some exceptions
Treating Property as one’s own
S 6(1) Where D intends to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Treating thing as own to dispose of regardless of other’s rights
Rapheal [2008] - intention to ransom or sell back
Velumyl - intention to replace with identical property
Mitchell - intention to abandon property - took victims car to escape (largely undamaged on a road where it could be easily retrieved and found. The circumstances of the car on appeal found they left the victims car in a place where this can easily be found)
Borrowing/lending for period/in circumstances equivalent to outright taking/disposal
Llyod -> Where they borrow but dispose of the value. Took some physical actual films from the cinema and took copies but later returned them. It was not outright taking or disposal because he actually gave them back. Value still exists here despite value.
DPP v SJ -> Where they borrow but dispose of the value completely. D borrowed set of headphones snapped them and returned them back. Value completely gone.
Parting under uncertain conditions
Section 6(2)
Parts with property under a condition as to its return which me may not be able to perform
D takes V’s earrings intending to keep them if the gemstones are genuine
AG’s References - conditional intent is still valid intention
Reconsider Easom [1971]
