Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law- Theft, Robbery, Burglary > Theft S.1 > Flashcards

Theft S.1 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

S.3(1) defines appropriation as…

A

Dishonesty assuming the rights of the owner with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Anderton v Wish 1980, FACTS

A

S.3(1)
Switched prices on makeup brushes, took more expensive ones with the cheaper label, PAYED lower price, left the shop, arrested for theft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Anderton v Wish 1980, OUTCOME

A

Assumption took place: the moment she switched the labels, she assumed the rights of the owner
-> appropriated the goods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Burnside 1984, FACTS

A

S.3(1)
B switched labels on two meats, STOPPED BEFORE she payed the lesser amount, charged with theft.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R v Burnside 1984, OUTCOME

A

Assumption took place: the moment she switched the labels, committed appropriation.
IT IS RELÈVENT THAT SHE DID NOT REACH THE PAY DESK!!!!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v McPearson 1973, FACTS

A

S.3(1)
M snuck whiskey into her bag while her friends were distracting the supermarket staff, arrested BEFORE going to the pay desk, charged with theft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v McPearson 1973, OUTCOME

A

Assumption took place: when she put the whiskey in her bag, as she assumed the rights of the owner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Eddy v Niman 1981, FACTS

A

S.3(1)
N and friends entered the shop with intention of stealing, put various items in basket, before reaching pay desk N changed his mind and gave basket to his friend. N was later charged with theft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Eddy v Niman 1981, OUTCOME

A

Despite the intention to steal, there was consent to use the basket -> NO APPROPRIATION

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Skipp 1975, FACTS

A

S.3(1)
S had to drive a lorry of oranges to London but wanted to steal them and take them to Leicester. Charged with theft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v Skipp 1975, OUTCOME

A

Appropriation took place when he deviated from his route, at that point he assumed the rights of the owner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Corcoran v Anderton 1980, FACTS

A

S.3(1)
C attacked a woman intending to take her bag, bag fell to the ground and he ran off empty handed, was charged with robbery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Corocan v Anderton 1980, OUTCOME

A

Appropriation took place when C touched the bag, he assumed the rights of the owner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Gomez 1992, FACTS

A

S.3(1)
G conspired to steal goods with a friend, presented cheque to manager claiming it was cleared, he asked for permission to hand over the goods. Manager agreed c chaque bounced G charged with theft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Gomez 1992, OUTCOME

A

Crown court originally found him guilty, CoA overturned on basis the manager gave consent, therefore he had not assumed the rights of the owner under s.3.
HOWEVER, the HoLs overruled CoA and found G guilty of theft, “consent is now irrelevant “,”the moment he touches the item”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Hinks 2000, CASE FACTS

A

S.3(1)- consent without deception
A woman received money daily over 8 months, she accompanied him numerous times to his building society, £60,000 deposited to her account and given a TV.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

R v Hinks 2000, OUTCOME

A

Court held that an acceptance of a gift can amount to an appropriation.
This widening of definition has caused some problems where a gift is considered property of the recipient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

S.3(2), DEFINED

A
  • Later assumption of right
    Still appropriation when the D gets the property without stealing it, but then decides to keep the property as the owner
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

AR of theft

A

Appropriating property belonging to another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

MR of theft

A

Dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

S.4(1) defines property as…

A

Property is anything that can be owned:
Money
Real property
Personal property
Intangible property (identity)
Things in action (cheques)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Oxford v Moss 1979, CASE FACTS

A

S.4(1)
Student photocopied an exam paper, returned paper but was later discovered. Prosecuted for theft of information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Oxford v Moss 1979, OUTCOME

A

Found not guilty, “information does not amount to property” under s.4(1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

S.4(3) and (4) states..

A

(3). Anything “growing wild” on another’s land will not amount to theft if taken
(4). Wild creatures are not property unless someone has taken them into their possession

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

R v Kelly and Lindsay 1998, CASE FACTS

A

S.4(1)
K was a sculptor who asked L to take body parts from their Royal College of Surgeons where he worked. K made casts of parts.
Convicted of theft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

R v Kelly and Lindsay 1998, OUTCOME

A

Tried to appeal saying body parts did not amount to property.
CoA held although a dead body was not under the theft act 1968, but the body parts acquired had
“different skills like dissection or preservation techniques are used to prepare items for display or teaching”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

S.5(1) defines belonging to another as..

A

Property is considered belonging to someone if they have possession, control or legal right to it

28
Q

R v Turner 1971, CASE FACTS

A

S.5(1)
T retrieved his own car from a garage without them knowing since he didn’t agree with the bill. The garage had “possession” and “control” of the “car” under a lien, until the bill was paid

29
Q

R v Turner 1971, OUTCOME

A

You can still be guilty of stealing your own property

30
Q

R v Woodman 1974, CASE FACTS

A

S.5(1)
Cleared a site and left scrap metal which woodman took by hopping the fence

31
Q

R v Woodman 1974, OUTCOME

A

They didn’t need to know the property was missing for woodman to be guilty of theft

32
Q

R v Basildon Magistrates Court 2010, CASE FACTS

A

S.5(1)
R took bags left outside for a charity shop, guilty of theft

33
Q

R v Basildon Magistrates Court 2010, OUTCOME

A

V doesn’t need to know property is missing for R to be guilty of theft

34
Q

R v Webster 2006 talks about..

A

S.5(1)
Proprietary interest,
Soldier received extra medal from ministry of defence
Sold it on eBay knowing MOD still had partial ownership, guilty of theft

35
Q

S.5(3) talks about ‘in a particular way’

A

Covers those situations where a person is given money or property and is given directions on how to deal with it

36
Q

Davidge v Bunnet 1984, CASE FACTS

A

S.5(3)
Flatmates gave B cheques for the gas bill, she cashed the cheques and used it to buy Christmas presents

37
Q

Davidge v Bunnet 1984, OUTCOME

A

Guilty of theft, s.5(3) applies

38
Q

What are the five criteria that have to be proven for theft- authorities as well

A

Appropriation- s.3
Property- s.4
Belonging to another- s.5
Intention to permanently deprive- s.6
Dishonesty- s.2

39
Q

S.5(4) is…

A

Owning property by another’s mistake

40
Q

R v Gilks 1972, CASE FACTS

A

S.5(4)
A book maker was paid £106 too much, g knew this mistake but kept the money

41
Q

R v Gilks 1972, OUTCOME

A

S.5(4) applied, guilty of theft
There was an obligation to give back the money as the property still belonged to another

42
Q

S.6 covers what situations?

A

situations where there is the intention to permanently deprive

43
Q

R v Lloyd 1989, CASE FACTS

A

S.6
Pirated a film

44
Q

R v Lloyd 1989, OUTCOME

A

Found not guilty as he couldn’t have had intention to permanently deprive since film was returned in a few hours

45
Q

R v Velumy 1989, CASE FACTS

A

S.6
Borrowed money from employers safe without permission, spent it and retuned same amount 2 days later

46
Q

R v Velumy 1989, OUTCOME

A

Guilty of theft as he couldn’t have returned the same notes

47
Q

DPP V Lavender 1994, CASE FACTS

A

S.6
D took doors from a council property which was being repaired, doors were still in possession of the council

48
Q

DPP V Lavender 1994, OUTCOME

A

Widened the definition of ‘dispose of’
L moved the doors as his own by moving them from one property to another without permission

49
Q

R v Easom 1971, CASE FACTS

A
  • S.6 conditional intent
    E picked up a bag, rummaged through contents and put it back without taking anything
50
Q

R v Easom 1971, OUTCOME

A

Originally convicted of theft, quashed on appeal. CoA stated there was no evidence that the defendant had the intention to permanently deprive the owner of its items

51
Q

S.2 dishonesty test

A

Gosh test -> R v Gosh
Jury will decide
(a) would the D’s conduct be regarded as dishonest according to the standards of the “ordinary reasonable man” if yes…

52
Q

Part b of gosh test?

A

(b) did the D realise his conduct would be regarded as dishonest to the ordinary reasonable man
Ivey v Genting Casinos 2017

53
Q

Ivey v Genting Casinos 2017, CASE INFO

A

The case involved a professional gambler who came up with a technique called ‘edge sorting’ in card games

54
Q

Ivey v Genting Casinos 2017, REFORM

A

Reform carried out by the SC
-> removed the subjective element from the test (b) as the gambler had escaped guilt in the lower courts by arguing with it

55
Q

What did R v Barton and Booth 2020 confirm

A

The obiter comments of the SC in Ivey
-> The CoA has confirmed the Gosh Test for dishonesty is now only objective

56
Q

How many defences are there to dishonest- with authorities

A

S.2(1)(a)- D honestly believed that he had a legal right to the property
S.2(1)(b)- D honestly believed the owner would have consented to the taking of property
S.2(1)(c)- D appropriates property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

57
Q

R v Holden 1991, CASE FACTS

A

S.2(1)(a)
D stole scrap tyres from Kwik Fit where he worked, claimed other workers took tyres with permission from supervisors

58
Q

R v Holden 1991, OUTCOME

A

Originally found guilty of theft.
Quashed by CoA bc he honestly believed he had the legal right and test was subjective

59
Q

R v Robinson 1977, CASE FACTS

A

S.2(1)(a)
R confronted victim with a knife making threats demanding £7

60
Q

R v Robinson 1977, OUTCOME

A

Found not guilty as he honestly believed that he had a legal right to the £7, as it was owed to him by the victim’s husband

61
Q

R v Small 1987, CASE FACTS

A

S.2(1)(a)
S took an unlocked car he believed was abandoned as it was in the same place for two weeks. He found with the key in the ignition, he put petrol and drove off. Saw police lights, panicked and ran away.

62
Q

R v Small 1977, OUTCOME

A

Convicted of theft, quashed by CoA bc question to consider was whether D had honest belief that the owner couldn’t be found

63
Q

Lawrence v Met Police C 1972, CASE FACTS

A

S.2(1)(b)
L overcharged an Italian £6.48 as the charge was only 52p

64
Q

Lawrence v Met Police C 1977, OUTCOME

A

L found guilty of theft since had the Italian known the full facts he wouldn’t have consented to the extra fair

65
Q

“Finding” situations reasonable steps could include

A

S.2(1)(c)
- attempting to contact the owner by letter or telephone
- taking the property to the nearest police station

Law- Theft, Robbery, Burglary (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions