Theft Key Questions - Topic 14 Flashcards
What is Section 1 of the 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
Give an example of what is meant by appropriation in Section 3 of The Theft Act 1968
Taking goods in a supermarket and placing them in your pocket or shopping bag
What happened in R v Morris? What was the appropriation in this case?
D switched the price labels of two items - here he assumed the rights of the owner as he decided he could swap the price labels which is the owners choice
What is the position when the owner consented to you taking their property?
appropriation is an assumption of any owners rights taking place regardless of wether the owner consents
Point: appropriation is assuming the rights of the owner regardless of wether the owner gave their consent or not, Lawerence v CMP
A taxi man asked for more money than he should have when dropping off an Italian student knowing that he would not understand what was being asked of him
Point: appropriation is assuming the owners rights regardless of wether the owner gave their consent, R v Gomez
D persuaded the manager to take payments in good which were two cheques which he knew were stolen and had no value
Can a gift ever be appropriation?
Yes
What is ‘real’ property?
Money and all other property real or personal including things in action and other intangible property
What are the 5 categories of property outlined in section 4 of the theft act 1968?
- Money
- Real
- Personal
- Things in action
- Intangible property
What things cannot be stolen?
Plants growing wild
What does belonging to another mean?
It is someone else’s property
What does belonging to another mean if it is in control of another?
The possession or control of the item doesn’t have to be lawful
Point: the possession or control of the item doesn’t have to be lawful, R v Turner
D left their car at a repair shop and took it back before paying for it because the garage was in possession of the car they had a right to retain possession until the payment was made
What is the difference between lost and abandoned?
Lost = you are still in possession/ control of the property even if you don’t know where it is
Abandoned = no one is in possession or control
Point: it is possible for someone to be in possession or control of property even though he or she doesn’t know it is there, R v Woodman
D took scrap metal from a company which had left some unknowingly behind but because they were still in possession of the land where the metal was taken on D was convicted
What does ‘received under an obligation’ mean?
Property handed over to the defendant on the basis that he or she will keep it for the owner or deal with it in a particular way
Point: there can be obligation in less formal situations e.g. paying a shared bill, Davidge v Bunnett
D was given money to pay the gas bill however she used it on Christmas presents instead which meant she went against the legal obligation to deal with the money in a particular way
What happens if you receive property by mistake?
You should return it when you realise the mistake
Point: property received by mistake, Attorney-general’s reference no.1
D received an overpayment and once she recognised the mistake she did not withdraw any part of the money
Section 2(1) of the Theft Act 1968 gives three situations in which the defendants behaviour would not be considered dishonest:
- Has in law the right to deprive the other of it on behalf of him or a third party
- He would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
- The person who the property belongs to can’t be discovered by taking reasonable steps
Point: A person won’t be considered dishonest if he believes he has the right in awarding to deprive the other of property, R v Holden
D stole scrap tyres from where he worked and claimed that other people had taken scrap tyres and so he believed he could do so also. His conviction was quashed because he believed in law he had the right to take the tyres and so was not dishonest
Point: A person won’t be considered dishonest if he believes he has the right in awarding to deprive the other of property, R v Robinson
D was owed money by V’s wife and when a fight broke out a £5 note fell on the floor and D kept it. His conviction was quashed because he had an honest belief that he was entitled to the money
Point: believes he would have the others consent, R v Flynn
D took £6 as he believed his employer would consent to the appropriation. Because he was not dishonest in which he believed his employer would honestly allow this he was not guilty
Point: believes the person can’t be discovered by taking reasonable steps, R v Small
D had seen a car for two weeks untouched and so because he believed the car was abandoned he took it. He was found not guilty because he believed the car was completely abandoned and that he could not find the owner by taking reasonable steps
Does it matter that the defendant is willing to pay for the property? How do you know?
No because it does not prevent the defendants conduct from being dishonest, S 2(2) states a persons appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest not withstanding that he is willing to pay for the property
R v Bartin and Booth
Would an ordinary and reasonable person believing the same facts as the defendant consider them dishonest?
Point: D had intention to permanently deprive, R v Velumyl
D took money from the office safe and said he would replace the money when his friend repaid him. D was guilty because he had the intention to permanently deprive the company of the banknotes he had taken
Point: D had intention to permanently deprive, DPP v Lavender
D took doors from a councils property and used them. Because the doors were still in possession of the council and had been transferred without permission D was guilty
Point: D had intention to permanently deprive, R v Lloyd
The protectionist gave D a film that was showing at the cinema so that D could make illegal copies. The film was returned and so the conviction was quashed as the original copy had been replaced which meant D had no intention to permanently deprive the cinema
Point: D had intention to permanently deprive, DPP v J and others
DD robbed a boy and snapped his headphones and then returned them to him. Although they returned the headphones they were useless and so the boy was permanently deprived of the use of his headphones
