WEEK 8 property offences- theft only Flashcards
What are the facts and significance in Morris 1984 regarding appropriation via a singular right of the owner?
)Assumption of a right in Morris 1984: any assumption of any right will amount to an appropriation, this extends the scope of the offence because Ds act, which might naturally be regarded as mere preparation or attempts because they involve the assumption of a single right, constitute the AR for the full offence.
Morris 1984= D switched labels on two articles, with the intent of buying the more expensive item under the price of the less expensive item. The right to label goods is one of the owner, so the label-switching amounted to an appropriation and theft. D had appropriated the goods as soon as he switched the labels; however, this would not amount to the full offence without MR and he had to also intend to deprive permanently, as Morris had done.
What does Gomez 1993 and Lawrence say about appropriation with consent?
Appropriation with consent in Gomez 1993: Gomez held that D could be guilty of appropriation if D did so with Vs consent in relation to the property. Gomez followed the decision in Lawrence, in which D was convicted of stealing from V, an Italian with little English. V showed D (taxi driver) a £1 note but D indicated that £1 was not enough and therefore took £1 and a £5 note from Vs open wallet. V had consented to this but lacked the information and language to withdraw consent or protest.
In Gomez 1993, D persuaded his manager to sell goods valued at £17,000 to his accomplice X, and to accept payment by 2 cheques, which were stolen and worthless. They should’ve been convicted of obtaining goods by deception (civil) but were charged with theft (criminal) before being acquitted. Their charges were reinstated by the HL. Lawrence prevailed here with regards to consent, in that the £17,000 worth of goods were appropriated with consent gained in a fraudulent manner.
Can there be theft where title is transferred and the property remains with the defendant ie no restitution available? what are the facts and significance of Hinks 2001 here?
Appropriation of indefeasibly title to property in Hinks 2001: In all other examples given, the proprietary right gained by D was voidable and the owner could get his property back, but this would still suffice for D to be guilty of theft. In contrast, where D gets a non-voidable right to the property, he has the right to retain the property. Seems impossible for a criminal court to hold that a transaction which resulted in D obtaining such a right amounted to a theft of the property by him. In Hinks 2001, D received a substantial gift from V, a person of a vulnerable mental state, over whom D had some influence. In each case, V was in sufficient mental state to give property. In Hinks, where D was dishonest towards a vulnerable person, he was convicted. As a result, a gift recipient may be guilty of theft, provided dishonestly can be proved.
- However, even though there is theft in a case like this, there may be no grounds for restitution and D remains owner under the civil law.
How can there be an appropriation by keeping or dealing, even when no further rights are being assumed by the defendant?
Appropriation by keeping or dealing:
- There can be an appropriation not only by assuming a right of an owner but also by keeping or dealing with property as owner. Dealing is not as broad as keeping, as D cannot be said to be dealing with property where he simply hasn’t used the property or done anything to it.
- Where D borrows Vs bike and then decides not to return it, he is guilty of theft where, after use of it for the week, he then keeps it in his garage hoping V will forget about it. This will of course be subject to his mens rea and an intention to permanently deprive someone of it.
- Can there be appropriation where D induces V to hand over property but has not come into physical contact with it at all?
- Backed up by Briggs
It has been held that appropriation connotes a physical act rather than a mere action triggering another to lose possession of their own property, eg in the case where D tricks V into sending money to another.. This would be a case of fraud instead.
Briggs 2004 facts and significance?
- D had bought a house in her own name on behalf of her family members, against their wishes. The letter of authority was signed by the family members but in the name of Briggs. Where a victim caused a payment to be made by deceptive conduct, there was no theft in accordance with s3(1) of theft act 1968. Appropriation required a physical act by D (open to a conviction of deception and fraud instead)
What does s4 of theft act say about what cannot be stolen property?
- You cannot steal land unless you are a trustee and sell it wrongly, when you appropriate any part of the land through severance, or appropriates under a tenancy.
- Taking wild mushrooms or taking wild creatures is nt theft unless used for a profit (mushrooms) or the animal has reduced it to possession.
What are things action?
Things in action= Must be property which can be appropriated, intangible property may be appropriated by assuming rights of an owner over it and is best illustrated in the case of bank accounts. The property A has when he has money in a bank is one in action, as there is no dedicated pile of money for which he could claim to be his, and yet he still has control over a set amount of money. D can appropriate Vs bank account by exercising any right which V has over it, such as making purchases.
Can electricity be stolen?
Electricity= The dishonest use, wasting or diverting electricity was a separate offence which was preserved by s13 of the Theft act 1968, and is separated owing to its nature. It therefore is not capable of appropriation, but someone can be convicted of wasting or diverting it, even if there is no benefit to be gained to themselves by doing so. The use of electricity therefore need not be enjoyed by D himself, just that it is consumed in a way which it would not have been consumed without the acts of D. The MR is dishonesty.
Oxford v Moss 1978 facts and significance (confidential information)
Oxford v moss 1978- student had obtained his upcoming exam paper, and meant to return the paper itself, but obviously he retained the intellectual property. He was convicted but this was eventually quashed because it was held that it could be dealt with under the civil law and through damages and injunctions, rather than the criminal law. Therefore confidential information was not to be considered as property.
Kelly 1999 body parts
Kelly was instructed to remove human body parts from her college, K took them home and used them to make casts. The judges found her guilty of theft and distinguished the common law idea that human body parts or corpses were not property- where they were of medical or scientific use, there were rights over the property. Appeal dismissed, body parts had lawful skill applied to them, and therefore they were of important use and could rightly be treated as property.
Smith 2011 stolen drugs
S was convicted for theft after stealing £50 worth of stolen heroin from a drug dealer. They appealed on the basis that s4 did not make an express provision that stolen property could be subject to theft. It was held that a lack of mention did not make such tangible property incapable of being stolen, and the conviction was upheld. The appropriation of these drugs was therefore sufficient.
What does s5 of theft act talk about?
Property belonging to another defined as ‘belonging to any persons having permission or control of it, or having in it any proprietary rights or interest.
How can possession and ownership be different?
Can an owner steal their own property?
- Ordinarily someone owns and possesses solely and simultaneously, but it could be that two partners own a business and one of them makes of with it in some way, he has still stolen from the other partner as he has excluded him from exercising his own rights to the property.
- There can be a theft of a possession, control and proprietary interest (ownership) simultaneously eg where V gives X a book to show Y, and D snatches it from Xs hand.
- Even an owner may steal his own property eg where D steals the book from V which he has lent to him (given possession to). D has a better proprietary claim than the victim but is still guilty of theft. (subject to dishonesty and MR). Turner illustrates this, as his car was security for the garage that was fixing it, until D returned and paid for the repairs. Instead he took the car back with the spare key
What case is authoritative for saying that your own property can be stolen?
- Turner (No 2)- D had left his car with V for repair, promising to pay for the repairs when he returned. D returned a few hours later and took the car with the spare key. Although he claimed he was entitled to do so, he was acting dishonestly and his conviction for stealing the car was affirmed. It is a hard case to justify because D can still be guilty of theft of his own property when he has the power to terminate Vs proprietary interest in his property. This case ignored the lien that D owed to V, in that V should remain in possession until D paid off the debt for his repairs.
How does treasure trove operate?
Treasure trove- The finder of treasure, D, who takes it for himself commits the AR of theft; he has appropriated property belonging to the crown. To prove theft from the crown, in addition to the usual mens rea, it has to be shown that D knew the crown was or might be the owner. May be easier to charged D with theft from the property owner where the property was found, as his dishonesty and knowledge regarding the land-owner may be easier to prove. Where property is found attached to land, the land-owner has a better claim than the finder, and when it is unattached the land owner has a better claim where he manifests intention to control the land and anything found on it.
