Criminal - Theft

Front 1

Theft s.1 (1) Theft Act 1968

Back 1

AR =
1) Appropriation
2) Of Property
3) Belonging to Another

MR =
1) Dishonest
2) Intention to permanently deprive

Front 2

Appropriation s.3 (1) TA

Back 2

Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner, includes innocent or later assumption

Front 3

DPP v Gomez (1993)

Back 3

Defendant an assistant manager in a shop, knowingly accepted stolen cheques in exchange for goods, defendant asked shop manager to authorise cheques even though he knew they were worthless. Held, still theft even though passed with consent of the owner.

Hint 3

HOL agreed with that you only have to assume one of the rights of an owner for an appropriation and, an appropriation can occur even if the property passed with the consent of the owner.

Front 4

R v Hinks (2000)

Back 4

There can still be appropriation even where there has been a valid gift of property to the defendant according to the civil law.

Hint 4

Defendant befriended a man with learning difficulties, over a period of several months defendant received £60K from man as a ‘gift’. Held, defendant convicted of theft, the acquisition of indefeasible title to property is capable of amounting to appropriation.

Front 5

R v Briggs (2004)

Back 5

Not convicted of theft as ‘appropriation’ connoted a physical act on the part of the defendant.

Hint 5

Defendant had aunt and uncle’s new house registered in her name by getting conveynacers to send money to solicitors. Aunt and uncle argued their consent to the transaction had been induced by fraud. Held, no theft.

Front 6

R v Atakpu (1994)

Back 6

Once a defendant has stolen property (appropriated with full mens rea) a later assumption of rights by him will not amount to another theft.

Hint 6

Defendants arrested at Dover for renting cars with false documents and attempting to sell in England convicted with conspiracy to steal. Held, convictions quashed on appeal as defendants has already stolen cars when they hired them, any later assumptions of rights not appropriation for theft.

Front 7

Property s.4

Back 7

• S.4 (1) - wide definition
• S.4 (2) – land may be stolen
• S.4 (3) – not liable for picking wild flowers unless for profit.
• S.4 (4) – cannot steal wild creature unless tamed or in captivity.

Front 8

Oxford v Moss

Back 8

Confidential information not property.

Hint 8

Exam answers taken

Front 9

Law v Blease

Back 9

Electricity not property, separate offence under s.13.

Front 10

Belonging to another s.5 (1)

Back 10

Property belongs to any person having possession or control of it.

Front 11

R v Turner (1971)

Back 11

It is possible to steal your own property if someone else also has possession, control or a proprietary interest in the property. S.5 (1) gives a wide definition of ‘belonging to’.

Hint 11

T took his car to a garage for repair. He removed the car from the garage after repair without paying. Held, T liable for theft as garage had lawful possession of the car under s.5 (1) TA.

Front 12

Edwards v Ddin (1976)

Back 12

The time to consider whether the property belongs to another is the moment the defendant dishonestly appropriates the property

Hint 12

Defendant drove off after filling up his car with petrol. Held that he was not guilty of theft, at the time the defendant was dishonest (when he decided not to pay) the property had already passed to him, therefore no coincidence of actus reus and mens rea.

Front 13

s.5 (3) TA

Back 13

When property given and receiver under an obligation to deal with it in some way, property is still belonging to the giver. Accused must be under a legal obligation (DPP v Huskinson)

Front 14

DPP v Huskinson (1988)

Back 14

Defendant received housing benefit of £479 but only paid £200 to landlord even though rent arrears were £800, charged with theft. Held, defendant had ownership and possession of the money and s.5 (3) did not apply, not legal to spend benefits on housing.

Hint 14

In order for s.5 (3) to apply the accused must be under a legal obligation, not just a moral one.

Front 15

Dishonesty

Back 15

Is def CLEARLY dishonest?

If not apply Ghosh test

Front 16

R v Ghosh (1982)

Back 16

Was what the defendant did dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people? If so, did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard what he did as dishonest?

Hint 16

Ghosh was a surgeon convicted of four offences. He obtained money by claiming fees for work that others had carried out, or that had been carried out under NHS.. The jury found him guilty, he appealed on the basis that the trial judge had told the jury to use their common sense to determine whether the conduct had been dishonest or not.

Front 17

Dishonesty defences s.2 (1) TA

Back 17

Not dishonest if:
a) Appropriates property in belief that in law he has the right to deprive other of it.
b) Appropriates property in belief that he would have others consent if other knew of the appropriation and circumstances, or,
c) If he appropriates property in belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by reasonable steps

Front 18

R v Velumyl (1989)

Back 18

If you take money intending to repay it, still intention to permanently deprive of those particular coins and notes. Intention to pay back only relevant to dishonesty.

Hint 18

Employee took money from employer intending to replace it later. Held, still had intention to permanently deprive.

Front 19

s.6 (1) TA

Back 19

S.6 (1) – applies to situations where property may as well have been taken without intention to permanently deprive, where property is treated as the ‘borrowers’ own (Chan Man)

Front 20

R v Lloyd (1985)

Back 20

A borrowing which is not equivalent to an outright taking cannot be theft, whatever economic consequences flow to the victim

If there is still value attached to the property when it is returned s.6 may not assist

Hint 20

Projectionist removed films in order to make pirate copies, charged with theft. Held, mere borrowing never enough to constitute necessary guilty mind unless intention is to return the thing in a state in which its goodness and virtue were gone.

Front 21

s.6 (2) TA

Back 21

• S.6 (2) – where a person having possession of property belonging to another parts with it under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights. E.g. pawning.