Theft Section 1 Theft Act 1968 Flashcards
What is the definition of theft
‘a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it’
what is the maximum sentence
7 years
what is the actus reus
- appropriates, this means doing something with someone else’s property without their consent
- property
- belonging to another
what is the mens rea
- dishonestly
- with the intention to permanently deprive
r v morris
switching labels on items to pay a lower price is an appropriation for theft
r v Lawrence
COA and HOL both stated that taking without consent of the owner was still appropriation
R v hinks
the HOL decided on a majority of 3 to 2 that accepting a valid gift is appropriation. this has the advantage of protecting old people
r v kelly and lindsey
a dead person is not normally ‘property’ however in this case it was due to the way the body parts were preserved and dissected.
Oxford v moss
d was liable for stealing the examination paper but not the information on it
r v Akbar
keeping the confidential information is the theft of the doer which it was written on
what does belonging to another mean?
property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control over it, or having any proprietary right or interest.
r v turner
d was guilty of stealing his own car when he took it from the possession and control of the garage without their knowledge
r v rostron
conviction for theft was upheld by the court of appeal, which stated it is a question of fact for the jury
BTA
abandoned property and rubbish belongs to the council
williams v phillips
property In rubbish belongs to the council
what behaviour is not dishonest
- d believes he has the legal right to the property
- d believes he would have the others consent
- d believes the owner of the property cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
ta68
a persons appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property
r v ghosh
cos introduced a 2 part test for dishonesty
Ivey v genting casinos
the test for dishonesty is simple ‘ whether d’s conduct is dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people’
what is the definition of intent to permanently deprive
usually it can be very obvious if d has intention to permanently deprive. if d takes money and spends it all this is true even if d intents to replace the money at a later date
r v velumly
he was not entitled to take the money and it did not matter that he was going to pay it back
r v Lloyd and other
there was no theft because the films had not reduced in value, nor were they changed state, the defendant did not intent to permanently deprive the other
dpp v j
if you give something back and it is damaged, or its state is damaged then it is an Intention to permanently deprive.
