Theft s3 appropriation Flashcards
What does the s3 section state?
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.”
Examples of appropiation?
This can be obvious in a lot of theft cases. For example if someone steals a wallet.
However the act is much broader than this:
“any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner”
FOR EXAMPLE:
An owner has a right to do almost anything, such as sell, rent or even destroy the property. If someone else does any of these things then the owner’s rights have been ‘assumed’
Note it is ‘any’ of the rights, not all – see Morris
What happened in the case of Pitham and Hehl 1977?
D had sold furniture belonging to another. Held to be an appropriation. The offer to sell was assumption of rights of an owner and the appropriation took point at that point. It didn’t matter whether furniture was removed from the property or not. Even if owner was never deprived of the property, the defendant still appropriated it by assuming rights of owner to offer the furniture for sale.
What happened in the case of R v Morris?
The defendant switched the price labels of 2 items in a supermarket. He then put the lower priced item in his basket; however, The HL held s 3 meant interference with any of the rights of the owner. Thus occurred when he switched labels. So it can be theft even if you don’t take anything, as long as all the other elements are proved.
Essentially following this case, anyone doing anything to property, belonging to another, appropriates it!
What is the first key point?
Defendant has to “assume” rights of owner.
Key of Morris in consent?
In Morris the owner would consent to taking goods off the supermarket shelf, but not to switching labels
The HL held there must be an adverse, or unauthorised, appropriation
This went against the earlier decision in Lawrence
What happened in the case of Lawrence 1972?
D )taxi driver-London) took Italian tourist who spoke little English to destination where the tourist offered D £1 but D took further £6 from tourist’s wallet. The fare should have been 50p
D argued the tourist had consented to the taking of the money from wallet by holding it open, so D could not have appropriated it.
Was not necessary to establish that the appropriation had taken place without owner’s consent. Belief or absence of belief that the owner consented to the appropriation may be relevant to the issue of dishonesty but not to the issue of appropriation.
What happened in the case of Gomez 1993?
D (assistant manager at electrical shop) asked to supply goods (£17,000) -exchange for 2 building society cheques- D knew were stolen. D obtained authority from manager to supply goods. D did not tell manager cheques were stolen and had not checked with the bank as instructed.
The CA quashed his conviction for theft- manager had consented, relying on Morris. The HL held - no need for an adverse interference with owner’s rights and that Lawrence showed appropriation can occur with owner’s consent
There was an appropriation even though he acted with authority of the shop manager. Lawrence was appropriate authority on the issue of appropriation. The consent of owner was irrelevant in deciding whether an appropriation had taken place.
What happened in the case of Hinks 2000?
D, carer of a 53-year-old man, of low intelligence, persuaded him to make gifts to her totalling £60,000 (almost all his savings). The jury was asked to consider if he was mentally incapable of understanding giving a gift, and that a reasonable person would not have accepted it.
Lawrence followed again:
The HL held, by a 3-2 majority, there was an appropriation as even where there is no deception there can still be an appropriation
Lord Hobhouse dissented (disagreed), said that there was no appropriation, Lord Hutton agreed there was appropriation but that consent could mean there was no dishonesty
In short it is now decided that a gift from a vulnerable/trusting person could amount to appropriation
Key point 2?
Is there consent? Gomez
Is there deception? Lawrence
Is there a gift (transfer of ownership) with deception? Hinks
ALL would still amount to an appropriation
What happened in case of R v Vinall?
Two youths riding bikes when one of the Ds shouted abuse at one and punched him off bicycle. He ran off leaving his bicycle. The Ds then chased after him. One of them then went back and took his bicycle. The bike was found abandoned at a bus shelter 50 yards away.
HELD: If the charge had been theft only, and the jury was not sure that at the moment of taking the appellants dishonestly appropriated the bicycle with intent (actual or deemed) permanently to deprive, they could next consider whether there was a later appropriation at the time of the abandonment in an open place where it could easily be found.
What happened in the case of R V ATAKPU AND ABRAHAMS 1994?
Ds hired cars in Germany and Belgium using false driving licenses and passports. They were arrested at Dover and charged with theft. Their conviction for theft was quashed. The appropriation was held to take place in Germany or Belgium and not continue until the cars reached English legal jurisdiction.
Key point 3?
Timing of the appropriation… Vinall
