Theft MCQs Flashcards
A woman goes to a party. All the coats are left upstairs in a bedroom. When she goes to collect her coat she sees a mink jacket. Horrified at the cruelty of a coat made out of animal fur, she takes a pair of scissors from the dressing table and cuts the jacket into small pieces which could not be sown together again. She leaves the pieces on the bed and goes home.
Which of the following best describes whether the woman has intention to permanently deprive for the purposes of theft?
The woman does not have intention to permanently deprive because she does not offer the jacket by way of sale, bargain with it or sell it
The woman has intention to permanently deprive because she has rendered the jacket useless
The woman has intention to permanently deprive because she has taken away all of the jacket’s goodness, virtue and practical value
The woman does not have intention to permanently deprive because she has not risked the jacket’s loss
The woman does not have intention to permanently deprive because she has not borrowed the jacket in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking
The woman has intention to permanently deprive because she has rendered the jacket useless
Correct. The extended meaning in s 6(1) Theft Act 1968 is ‘to treat the thing as [her] own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.’ **DPP v J **held that this will happen if the jacket is rendered useless.
The other options, some of which are plausible, are not the best answers or are incorrect.
Borrowing property that belongs to another can amount to intending to treat it as one’s own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights if it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking, s 6(1). However, the woman’s behaviour is not easily seen as borrowing.
Intending to treat the property in a manner which risks its loss may be evidence of intention to permanently deprive according to s 6(1) and case law such as R v Fernandes and **R v Marshall. **However, on the facts, the jacket has been rendered useless, as it cannot be sown together again.
A father buys three soft scoop ice creams from a van for himself and his children. He hands over £10.The man in the van mistakenly thinks the father has handed over a £20 note so gives him £12.50 change in coins. Initially the father does not notice he has too much change as he is grappling with the ice creams and the coins. Eventually the father sees he has been given too much money and decides to keep it. By this time, his children have eaten most of their ice cream.
Which of the following best explains whether the money belongs to another for the purposes of theft?
The money does not belong to another because it belongs to the father who has possession and control of it
The money belongs to another because the father is under an automatic obligation to restore property acquired by mistake
The money belongs to another as the father is under an obligation to deal with the money in a particular way
The money belongs to another because the father is under a legal obligation to restore the extra change which belongs to the ice cream seller and the father
The money belongs to another because the father is under a legal obligation to restore the extra change which belongs to the ice cream seller alone
The money belongs to another because the father is under a legal obligation to restore the extra change which belongs to the ice cream seller and the father
Correct
Correct. Section 5(4) Theft Act 1968 states that where property is given to another by a mistake and there is a legal obligation to restore it, that property belongs to the other for the purposes of the Theft Act.
The other options, some of which are plausible, are not the best answer or are incorrect.
Where property has been acquired by a mistake, legal ownership passes to the recipient (the father). However, s 5(4) Theft Act 1968 provides that for the purposes of theft, the property will be regarded as still belonging to the original owner, the ice cream seller (as well as the recipient) if the recipient is under a legal duty to restore the property in whole or part.
Section 5(4) does not create an automatic legal obligation to restore. The section will operate only if such an obligation can be established in law such as Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983).
Section 5(3) would only operate if the father was under a legal obligation to use the money in a particular way for the ice cream seller.
A woman suspects her colleague at work is suffering from the early stages of dementia. She tells him she has got into debt and is due to have her electricity cut off. This is not true. She asks the colleague for £2,000. Although he does not believe her, he hands her the money in cash. He does this because he knows she is a single parent who is struggling financially, he has plenty of money and he feels sorry for her.
Which of the following best explains whether the woman has appropriated the money for the purposes of theft?
She has appropriated the money despite his consent, and despite his intention to give her the money as a gift
She has appropriated the money because she thinks he has dementia and is taking advantage of him
She has not appropriated the money because the man intended it to be a gift to her
She has appropriated the money because she has lied to him in her reasons for needing the money
She has not appropriated the money because the man consented- he knew she was lying when he gave her the money
She has appropriated the money despite his consent, and despite his intention to give her the money as a gift
Correct
Correct. It was held in R v Gomez that you can appropriate with the owner’s consent as appropriation is an objective description of the act done independent of the mental state of either the owner or the defendant. Following on from this reasoning, the House of Lords said in R v Hinks that it is possible to appropriate a gift.
The other options are incorrect. When considering whether there has been an appropriation for the purposes of theft, it is irrelevant that:
· she has lied to him in her reasons for needing the money;
· the man intended the money to be a gift to her;
· the man consented- he knew she was lying when he gave her the money;
· she thinks he has dementia and is taking advantage of him.
A woman borrows a pair of shoes from her friend for a night out planning to return them the next day. The following day the woman walks round to her friend’s house with the shoes but as she turns on to the street she sees the friend kissing her boyfriend. Her friend and boyfriend didn’t see her and she turned around and ran home. She decided to keep the shoes as she never wanted to see her friend again.
Which of the following best explains whether the woman might be guilty of theft?
The woman might be guilty of theft as she later appropriates the property when she decides to return home and keep the shoes.
The woman might be guilty of theft as she is clearly dishonest.
The woman is unlikely to be guilty of theft as she will be able to show that she believed that her friend would consent to her keeping the shoes knowing that the friend has stolen her boyfriend.
The woman might be guilty of theft as she always had the intention to permanently deprive her friend of the shoes.
The woman is unlikely to be guilty of theft as she did not intend to keep the shoes when she appropriated them.
The woman might be guilty of theft as she later appropriates the property when she decides to return home and keep the shoes.
Correct. Whilst the initial appropriation is innocent, there is a later appropriation (s.3(1) Theft Act) when she decides to keep the shoes and at this point if she is dishonest then all of the elements of theft would be present.
A woman is meeting her personal trainer after work. He likes to be paid in cash. She realises that she does not have enough cash so borrows £20 from the envelope in her desk drawer which contains contributions from her colleagues for a leaving present for their boss. She intends to replace the money.
Which of the following is the best argument for why she will escape criminal liability for theft?
She does not have an intention to permanently deprive because she will return the money with all its goodness, virtue and practical value
The money does not belong to another as ownership of the money passed to the woman when she collected it
She does not take property as money is not mentioned as a form of property
She is not dishonest
She does not appropriate the money as she intends to replace it
She is not dishonest
Correct. She may believe her colleagues would consent to her borrowing the money, s 2(1)(a). In cases where any of the exceptions to dishonesty apply, the common law test in **Ivey v Genting Casinos **will not be considered. However, it is unlikely she would be viewed as dishonest under the Ivey test in any event.
If any element of the offence is missing, as here with dishonesty, the offence cannot be established.
The other options, some of which are plausible, are not the best answer or are incorrect.
All the other elements of theft can be established here.
She appropriates the money when she takes it from the envelope as this is an assumption of a right of the owner to handle it and spend it, s 3(1) and R v Morris.
Money is specifically listed as property in s 4(1).
The money belongs to another assection 5(3) will almost certainly apply here. It looks as if there is a legal obligation to spend the money in a particular way. See Davidge v Bunnett.
There is intention to permanently deprive as she does not intend to return the exact same note. See R v Velumyl.
