Theft - M/R Flashcards
What is the m/r for theft?
Dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive.
What are the three situations where D would’ve been said not to of been dishonest?
This is where D believes - He has a legal right to the property-
- He has consent of the person to whom the property belongs
- The person to whom the property belongs cannot be traced by taking reasonable steps
What is the Old test for dishonesty established in the case old R v Ghosh (1982)?
- Was the D’s conduct dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?
- Was the D aware that his conduct would be regarded as dishonest by a reasonable and honest people?
What was the issue with the old test?
The old test allowed too many people to slip through the law.
What is the New Test for dishonesty established in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) 2017?
(1) Fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts (subjective)
(2) Whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the standards of ordinary decent people (objective)
What was established in the case of R v Feely (1973)?
The CofA held that the question of what was dishonest was for the jury to determine.
Intention to permanently deprive - R v Warner (1970)?
(Toolbox hider)
CoFA held to constitute theft the thief must intend permanently to deprive the owner of the goods.
What was held in the case of R v Velumyl (1989)?
D did not intend to return the EXACT same money - same notes and coins, so was theft as had no intention to return objects he had taken.
What happened in the case of R v (Adrian) Small 1988?
CofA ruled he was not guilty of theft - if he had an honest belief to that effect - because if the owner HAD abandoned it - he could not have been deprived.
What happened in the case of R v Fernandes 1996?
CofA observed that the critical notion in s.6 is whether a D intended to - “Treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights”.
Position is that if the D gambles the victim’s property or invests it in a risky investment then D will be treated as intending to permanently deprive.
What was held in the case of R v Llyod (1985)?
Court held that there was “…still virtue in the film” i.e. it was not an outright taking or disposal because the films had not diminished in value at all.
What was held in the case R v Marshall 1998?
Mantell LJ stated “The ticket belongs to London Underground. It has been appropriated by the Appellant. It is the exclusive right of London Underground to sell tickets. By acquiring and re-selling the ticket the Appellant has an intention to treat the ticket as his own to dispose of regardless of London Underground’s right.
What is held for conditional intention?
Possession of property belonging to another under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.
- this will be theft
