theft robbery Flashcards
theft act 1968
a person guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the the other of it
APPROPRIATION
section 3
any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation
Lawrence v MPC
- defendant taxi driver climed he hadn’t appropriated an excess dare because the victim offered his wallet
held:still appropriation despite consent
R v MORRIS
- the defendant swapped the price on a joint of pork
held: assuming one riht was enough and as this was adverse to the owners wishes it was appropriation
R V GOMEZ
- the defendant enticed his manager to accept a fake cheque from a customer in return for goods
held: there was appropriation consent was irrelevant
R v PITHAM AND HEHL
- the defendants invited others to flat of a colleague who was at prison
invited to buy what they wanted
held: offering to sell was sufficient to amount to appropriation as that was a right of an owner tey had assumed
R v HINKS
befriended a man of low intelligence but significant weath , each day he would coerce £300 fro bank and give to her- no savings
held: gift could amount to appropriation
PROPERTY
S4: includes money and all other property, real or personal including things in action and other intangible property
OXFORD V MOSS
held: information or a secret is not of itsaelf property
R V SHARP
recognises no property in a corpse
R v Kelly & Lindsay
- stole brain and heads from college of surgeons
held: convicted of theft
Belonging to another
S5
1) property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having any propietrary right or interest
R v Turner:
drove his car away from garage with spare keys before paying for repairs
held: he had stolen his own car
S5(3): under obligarion to another to retain and deal with that property, or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or other proceeds shall be regarded as belonging tothe other
R v Wain
D’s bank balance collected for a charity fell within the ambit of s5(3) and was regarded as belonging to another
R v Hall
D’s bank balance collected as a deposit towards a holiday did not fall within the ambit of s5(3)
S5(4): Where a person gets property by anothers mistake,, is under an obligation to make restoration or of its proceeds or of the value theoreof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds sall be regarded as belonging to the person entitled
AG ref No1
- wpc overpaid £74 by cash transfer and was initially charged with theft
- she was later acquitted but as a point of law it was held that under s5(4) mobey would be regarded as still to thepolice
IPD
S6(1): if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of others rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or diposal
R v Marshall
the defendant collected old travel cards and sold
held:this was treating them as his own to dispose of tfl rights and IPD- says it remained tfl’s
DPP v Lavender
removed door from one council property and fitted it to his GFS council property
held: despite the fact that th door remained the councilds, he had treated it as his own to dispose of regardless of council rights
R V Lloyd
borrowed film reels from Odeon and copied and returned them
held: not theft and just borrowed
R v Velumyl
borrowed £1000 from a safe and lent it to a friend- and to return mon then to work
held: returning similiar would still be IPD- disposed of original property
R v Fernandes
solicitor who used client funds to make investments
held: risking the loss of anothers property is using it as your own to dispose IPD
R v Easom
- sat in a cinema leaving an open handbag in an adjacent seat
- Easom went through the handbag and then left having taken nothing from it
held: the was no theft. a conditional intent to steal if there is anything worth stealing is insufficent to show IPD
R v Raphael
D and others took the victim’s car and demanded that he pay £500 for its return
their defence was that they fully intended to return the property
held: applying a condition to return of another’s property, such as a ransom, amounted to an IPD
S(2) parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform
DISHONESTY
s2 (1) a persons appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest-
a) belief that he has in law the right
b) belief that he would have the other’s consent
c) belief that person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable
R v Small
abandoned a car that was stolen when pursued by police
parked every day for 2 weeks and not moved
held: belief the car had been abandoned had to be genuine not reasonable
Ivey v Genting casinos
refused to pay £7.7 million that he had won playing a game
the odds favour the casino a tiny bit
ivey used edge sorting to swing the odds substantially in his favour
on whether there was cheating and he did not believe he was acting dishonestly
held:
knowing what D knew factually were Ds actions dshonest by the standard of ordinary people
ROBBERY S1
S8(1) a person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force
R v Robinson
- robinson was owed £7 by the victims wife
- when he went to collect it, a fight developed between robinson and the victim and he dropped £5 and he grabbed it and kept
held: robinson was convinced the money was his meaning he ws not being dishonest S2(1)(a)
if he wasnt guilty of theft he couldnt be of robber
USE OF FORCE
S8(1)
R v DAWSON and JAMES
- two people stood on each side of a sailor
- nudged him to put him off balance whilst a third pick pocketed
- 2 robbery
insufficent force
held:without the force the theft could not have happened
R V CLOUDEN
- Followed a woman home and wrenched the bag out her grasp
held: appeal dismissed and Dawson and james was followed - force and appropriation could be one and the same
R V DONAGHY & MARSHALL
- threatened a minicab driver into driving them to London and stole cash when leaving cab
held: the jury acquitted the defendants of robber. the threat had been used to secure their ride to london and not in order to steal
R V BENTHAM
- broke into his former employee house and pretended that he had a gun and demanded jewellery
held: acquitted of a firearm but convicted of robbery. the threat of force was enough and did not matter that he could not carry out the threat
COCORAN V ANDERTON
- grabbed handbag from victim after one had struck her in the back- she and the bag fell but her screams caused the people to flee. - no control of bag
held: occured as soon as the appropriation taken place
COINCIDENCE OF THEFT AND USE OF FORCE
R V HALE
D forced their way into a house and held hand over mouth while other went to grab stuff
held: both the force prior to the theft and after could be considered when deciding if its robbery
R V LOCKLEY
set out to steal some beer from shop, tried to stop him after he grabbed the beer. force used after
held: r v hale continuing act
