W201 Test - Theft

Front 1

The offence of theft is defined in ?

Back 1

s1(1) Theft Act 1968

Front 2

The offence of theft is defined thus ?

Back 2

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly"

Front 3

How many elements in the act of theft ?

Back 3

5 (name them !)

Front 4

AR of theft ?

Back 4

Appropriate property belonging to another

Front 5

MR of theft ?

Back 5

Dishonestly and intention to permanently deprive

Front 6

Appropriation is defined in ?

Back 6

S3(1) Theft Act 1968

Front 7

S3(1) states ?

Back 7

"Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come to the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner"

Front 8

Appropriation essentially amounts to ?

Back 8

Assuming the rights of an owner to the property

Front 9

Case where D in supermarket switched price labels on 2 pieces of meat ?

Back 9

R v Morris (1984)

Front 10

Why did D's actions amount to appropriation in Morris (1984) ?

Back 10

HL decided switching the labels was the owner's right and in doing so he had assumed it

Front 11

Definition 1 of appropriation from Morris 1984 ?

Back 11

An act which adversely interferes with or usurps 'any right of an owner' (an act which is unauthorised - WATCH !!!!)

Front 12

Definition 2 of appropriation from Morris 1984 ?

Back 12

An assumption of any one right of an owner (to appropriate only had to usurp one of the many rights not all)

Front 13

Earlier case - foreign student, bad English who took taxi ride which driver charged £6 for a 50p fare ?

Back 13

Lawrence v MPC (1972)

Front 14

What did HL say in Lawrence 1972 ?

Back 14

Taking the money amounted to an appropriation since no 'without the consent of the owner' in s3(1) TA 1968

Front 15

So what did Lawrence 1972 decide ?

Back 15

Whether owner consented to the taking of the money was irrelevant

Front 16

The sequence of the 'appropriation' in Lawrence v MPC 1972 ?

Back 16

Handed over £1, driver intimated not enough so he handed over his wallet, driver took further £6. Charge was for theft of the £6

Front 17

Conflict between Lawrence 1972 and Morris 1984 ?

Back 17

HL had said in Morris that appropriation had to be an 'unauthorised act' but Lawrence said issues of consent irrelevant

Front 18

Which case resolved the conflict between Lawrence and Morris ?

Back 18

R v Gomez (1993)

Front 19

Facts of R v Gomez (1993) ?

Back 19

D asst mgr electrical goods store, collusion with customer asked for supply to pay with 2 stolen cheques . Asked shop manager for authorisation, didn't tell him worthless

Front 20

Gomez 1993 at trial ?

Back 20

D (asst mgr) charged and convicted of theft and appealed

Front 21

Question to HL in Gomez 1993 was ?

Back 21

When alleged theft occurs with property passing to the defendant with owner's consent but obtained by false representation is that appropriation and does there have to be an adverse interference with some right of the owner ?

Front 22

HL answer in Gomez 1993 ?

Back 22

Yes - taking with consent but by false representation is an appropriation. No - doesn't have to necessarily involve an element of adverse interference/usurpation of some right of the owner

Front 23

In Gomez 1993 majority judgement from Lord Keith saying ?

Back 23

Agreed with Morris - assuming 1 right was enough and also the requirement of owner's authorisation in that case was unnecessary for that decision therefore obiter

Front 24

So Gomez 1993 settled that ?

Back 24

Consent of owner definitely irrelevant to appropriation (so can include putting items in shopping basket or assistant stacking shelves)

Front 25

What had happened in CA for Gomez 1993 ?

Back 25

He had appealed that there was no appropriation and this was accepted (conviction quashed) so the Crown appealed onward (conviction restored)

Front 26

Lord Lowry's dissenting judgment in Gomez 1983 reasons ?

Back 26

• word appropriates should be given natural meaning and wasn't ambiguous
• the CLRC report leading to TA 1968 indicated obtaining property by deception should not ordinarily be theft
• Lawrence reasoning was wrong - inherent meaning of 'appropriate' involved absence of owner's consent
• where owner deceived into giving consent, should be properly charged under s15 TA1968 of obtaining by deception

Front 27

Prof JC Smith on Gomez in Criminal Law Review summary of appropriation ?

Back 27

'Anyone doing anything whatever to property belonging to another, without the authority of consent of the owner, appropriates it'

Front 28

So to appropriate property ?

Back 28

Assume a right associated with it with or without owner consent

Front 29

How might one 'later [assume] a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner' ?

Back 29

If legitimately came into possession of property but later did something to assume owner's rights eg drinking excess beer

Front 30

Bailment is ?

Back 30

Where owner has entrusted you with possession of some property for a limited purpose eg lent you a book to read for a week

Front 31

Does assuming rights incrementally equate to stealing more than once ?

Back 31

No seemingly, appropriation occurs as soon as one right assumed

Front 32

s3(2) TA 1968 states ?

Back 32

"Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor's title, amount to theft of the property'

Front 33

So 3(2) deals with ?

Back 33

That acquisition in good faith will not amount to theft eg the innocent purchaser for value

Front 34

To avoid liability for theft as the innocent purchaser under s3(2) must ?

Back 34

Have engaged in transfer 'for value' ie paid in some way + acted in good faith eg nothing obviously suspicious like it being considerably less than true value

Front 35

If you did obtain property as an innocent purchaser for value what might happen ?

Back 35

Not liable for theft of item eg a vase but you could be subject to a civil action for tort of conversion (wrongful possession of item) - strict liability so would probably require return to rightful owner

Front 36

What if someone gave you a stolen watch as a gift ?

Back 36

Not a purchaser (no value given), come by if innocently but assumed the rights when discovering stolen therefore cannot rely on s3(2)

Front 37

Case where D's hired cars in Germany with false paperwork and were arrested at Dover when they brought back the cars to sell them

Back 37

R v Atakpu (1994)

Front 38

Is putting items in a basket in a supermarket appropriation ?

Back 38

Yes, it involves assuming the owner's rights of possession and control (and consent is irrelevant - G 93)

Front 39

Case - elderly lady giving large sum of money to maid charged with theft ?

Back 39

R v Mazo (1996)

Front 40

CA Mazo 1996 ?

Back 40

No appropriation - no evidence that owner's consent had been obtained by deception and absolute title obtained in the money on receipt of it as gift

Front 41

Case that overturned Mazo 1996 ?

Back 41

R v Hinks (2000)

Front 42

Facts in Hinks 2000 ?

Back 42

Man had withdrawn £60k from building society and deposited in his carer's account

Front 43

Hinks 2000 is authority that ?

Back 43

Even a valid gift of property can amount to an appropriation as consent of owner is irrelevant - Mazo 1996 is not good law

Front 44

Which case cast doubt on Mazo 1996 before Hinks 2000 ?

Back 44

R v Kendrick and Hopkins (1997)

Front 45

Hinks 2000 is ?

Back 45

Binding authority but open to criticism , Prof J C Smith Law of Theft points out potential showing where a gift could make you absolute owner in civil law but still potentially liable for theft

Front 46

Case where D had fraudulently induced elderly relatives to transfer funds for the purchase of a property (subs transferred to & registered in her name and father's) ?

Back 46

R v Briggs (2004)

Front 47

Briggs 2004 legal principle ?

Back 47

Is not an appropriation where D deceives victim into dealing with property in some way (other than gifting it)

Front 48

Why did the CA decide no appropriation in Briggs 2004 ?

Back 48

This not so where victim deceived into dealing with property in some way causing advantage to D but where they don't get their hands directly on it

Front 49

Property is defined in ?

Back 49

s4(1) Theft Act 1968

Front 50

List the 5 things that amount to property ?

Back 50

Money, Real property, Personal property, Things in action, Other intangible property

Front 51

What is 'real property' ?

Back 51

Land + anything attached/fixed to it = house, garage, shed

Front 52

What is 'personal property' ?

Back 52

Anything tangible that is not real property eg cars, books, TV, furniture, jewellery, clothes etc

Front 53

What is 'things in action' ?

Back 53

Property which cannot touch or feel but can enforce by legal action eg copyright in a book written, credit balance in bank account, overdraft facility

Front 54

Why is an overdraft facility a thing in action ?

Back 54

The amount of overdraft (eg £500) is something that you have a contractual right to enforce and obliges bank to give or honour that amount

Front 55

Case where a co director with authority to make payment on co's behalf drew cheques against account for own purpose ?

Back 55

R v Kohn (1979)

Front 56

Charge in Kohn 1979 ?

Back 56

Theft of thing in action (bank debt owed to company) + the cheque itself

Front 57

Kohn 1979 said of the cheque using ?

Back 57

• with account in credit, D using owner's right to deal with credit which it had a contractual right to (a thing in action)
• when overdrawn within limit, right to write cheques to this limit by company (also a thing in action)
• when outside overdraft limit, no thing in action that could be appropriated

Front 58

Kohn 1979 on the actual cheques ?

Back 58

Not merely a piece of paper as it was right of named person to receive payment and therefore a thing in action until it ceased to exist following payment (but this view had changed)

Front 59

Law now has it that cheques cannot be property as a piece of paper because of [criticised case] ?

Back 59

R v Graham (1997)

Front 60

What is other intangible property ?

Back 60

Intangible property that cannot be classed as a thing in action technically eg a patent or an application for a patent (s30 Patents Act 1977 states personal property but not TIA)

Front 61

What covers the limited circumstances when land can be stolen ?

Back 61

s4(2) TA 1968

Front 62

4(2)(a) covers owning land as a trustee or personal representative etc and appropriating such land - example ?

Back 62

Joint owner forging others signature to sell land, executor of estate who transfers property into own name by forging docs instead of to named beneficiary

Front 63

4(2)(b) covers theft of land instance when ?

Back 63

[Someone] 'not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed out after it is severed'

Front 64

Example of 4(2)(b) land theft ?

Back 64

Going onto the land and chopping down a tree or removing dug up vegetables etc

Front 65

4(2)(c) land theft ?

Back 65

'when, being in possession of the land under a tendency, he appropriates the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land'

Front 66

Example of 4(2)(c) land theft ?

Back 66

A tenant leaving a property taking the greenhouse (structure) or some shelving (fixture)

Front 67

4(3) of TA ?

Back 67

Picking any wild mushrooms, flowers, fruit, foliage is not stealing unless for reward/sale/other commercial purpose

Front 68

4(4) TA 1968 ?

Back 68

Cannot steal a wild creature not tamed not ordinarily kept in captivity or the carcase unless reduced into possession and not since been lost or abandoned or in process of being reduced

Front 69

Case that determined going into examination office and reading the paper due to sit in few days then replacing into filing cabinet not theft of the paper (no intention to perm deprive and info not property under Act) ?

Back 69

Oxford v Moss (1979)

Front 70

Case determining you couldn't steal electricity because is not property ?

Back 70

Low v Blease (1975) - TA 68 has as separate offence unlawful abstraction of electricity

Front 71

Belonging to another is covered in ?

Back 71

s5 Theft Act 1968

Front 72

S5(1) ?

Back 72

Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest)

Front 73

Example 1 of thief taking property from other than sole owner ?

Back 73

Someone having possession or control of the property eg borrowed lawnmower

Front 74

Example 2 of thief taking property from other than sole owner ?

Back 74

Someone with a prop right or interest ie the legal owners holding the property on trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries

Front 75

Example 3 of thief taking property from other than sole owner ?

Back 75

Jointly owned property eg husband and wife or two partners in business

Front 76

Company and its directors theft ?

Back 76

Company property can be stolen even by sole shareholders - is a separate legal entity

Front 77

Abandoned property ?

Back 77

Doesn't belong to anyone - cannot be stolen. Will depend on facts though - could be owner had lost and given up looking for but not abandoned it (relinquished interest)

Front 78

Is it theft to remove a car from a garage having not paid for repairs ?

Back 78

Yes even though own property, garage has possession/control and it is lawful for them to retain until bill paid R v Turner (no 2) (1971)

Front 79

HL decision confirming that deceiving someone into writing a cheque in D's favour not theft ?

Back 79

R v Preddy (1996)

Front 80

Why the decision in Preddy 1996 ?

Back 80

There thing in action (right to sue on the cheque) was never property 'belonging to another'. Belongs to D as a chose in action from the point of being made out in his favour

Front 81

Case involving defrauding builder who would initially charge modest price to gain trust then with continuing work price would excessively rise charged on 23 counts of theft (usually elderly) ?

Back 81

R v Williams (Roy) (2001)

Front 82

What did CA affirm in Williams 2001 ?

Back 82

That in presenting cheques for payment (and destroying the thing in action) a clear assumption of owner's rights occurs in relation to the diminution of that part of their credit balance or overdraft

Front 83

s5(3) concerns ?

Back 83

Where property received from or on account of another with the obligation to deal with it in a particular way, the property or proceeds are to be regarded as belonging to another

Front 84

Example given of a 5(3) application ?

Back 84

Someone agrees to sort out buying tickets for a football game and collects money for this purpose. Having collected, changes his mind and absconds with it

Front 85

S5(3) states ?

Back 85

Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other

Front 86

Case where Housing Benefit received and less than half used to pay rent arrears to landlord, spending ready on himself. Held not to be theft as nothing in Social Security Regs to say he must spend it on rent ?

Back 86

R v Huskinson (1988)

Front 87

Appeal against theft (on basis of obligation to retain and deal with in particular way) by travel agent who had received deposits/payments for flights to US which never materialized and he didn't refund the money ?

Back 87

R v Hall (1973)

Front 88

Why did Hall 1973 have his conviction quashed ?

Back 88

No obligation under 5(3) to retain & deal with property in particular way. Was under a duty to buy tickets in due course but not obliged to use money they had given him or its proceeds for that purpose.

Front 89

In Hall 1973 Edmund Davies LJ quoted an example where 5(3) might apply ?

Back 89

A treasurer of some holiday fund misapplying fund or its proceeds where there would be a 5(3) obligation of the fund being for the particular purpose

Front 90

Because of 'or its proceeds' not obliged to keep exact same notes and coins separate provided an understanding that an equivalent sum would be - just account for money in due course because of case ?

Back 90

R v Klineberg and Marsden (1999}

Front 91

s5(4) thrust ?

Back 91

When property got by another's mistake and you are under an obligation to make restoration of it or its proceeds the extent of the obligation to be regarded as belonging to the person entitled to restoration

Front 92

So if employer overpays you can you keep it ?

Back 92

No the overpayment belongs to them by virtue of 5(4) as has been obtained by their mistake. Obligation to restore - AG Ref (1 of 1983) (1985)

Front 93

Case where D filled up at a petrol station then drove off without paying as attendant washing his hands after putting oil and water in car ?

Back 93

Edwards v Ddin (1976)

Front 94

Why was there no theft in Edwards v Ddin (1976) ?

Back 94

Supposedly D had not formed intention not to pay until after he had been filled up - at which point he had ownership and control of the petrol and owned it entirely (common thread of AR and MR needing to coincide)

Front 95

What offence introduced to get around acquittals for Edwards v Ddin (1976) scenarios ?

Back 95

Making off without payment s3 Theft Act 1978

Front 96

Situations where defendant held not to be dishonest found in ?

Back 96

s2(1) Theft Act 1968

Front 97

Situation 1 not dishonest ?

Back 97

Appropriation with belief that has in law right to deprive other on behalf of self or third person

Front 98

Situation 2 not dishonest ?

Back 98

Appropriation in belief that would have other's consent if they knew of it and the circumstances of it

Front 99

Situation 3 not dishonest ?

Back 99

Appropriation in belief that person to whom property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

Front 100

The beliefs in 2(1) TA 1968 are to what test standards ?

Back 100

Subjective - it's their belief in the existence of the circumstances and no necessity for them to have reasonable grounds for the belief

Front 101

2(1)(c) - you found a watch and no way of finding out who owner is but later on you hear of someone missing this watch ?

Back 101

This is a later assumption of the right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner under s3(1) and further retention of it would be dishonest - liable !

Front 102

According to the wording of s2(1)(c) when would it not apply ?

Back 102

When the property comes to you as a trustee or personal representative - ie couldn't claim you were not dishonest by keeping the property for yourself if unable to trace a beneficiary

Front 103

For the vast majority of cases s2(1) would not apply, in which case the test for dishonesty would be by virtue of ?

Back 103

R v Ghosh (1982)

Front 104

Facts of R v Ghosh (1982) ?

Back 104

Consultant surgeon obtained money by falsely pretending it was owed as an anaesthetist's fee

Front 105

Ghosh dishonesty applies to other than theft ?

Back 105

Fraud by false representation, burglary, robbery

Front 106

Ghosh 1982 test part 1 ?

Back 106

Jury to ask whether what defendant did was dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people [entirely objective)

Front 107

Ghosh 1982 test part 2 ?

Back 107

If yes to part 1, had the defendant realised that reasonable and honest people would regard what he did as dishonest [subjective]

Front 108

Lord Lane's Robin Hood analogy in Ghosh is ?

Back 108

Franky absolute bollocks

Front 109

When will Ghosh not be used ?

Back 109

When dishonesty is apparent on the facts and the jury need no guidance

Front 110

S2(2) Theft Act 1968 ?

Back 110

A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property

Front 111

Importance of s2(2) ?

Back 111

Not much - fact jury can take into account when applying Ghosh

Front 112

Intention to permanently deprive is covered where ?

Back 112

s6(1) Theft Act 1968

Front 113

s6(1) Theft Act 1968 states ?

Back 113

A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal

Front 114

Key points of 6(1) ?

Back 114

Intention of perm deprivation if intent to treat as own property and dispose of regardless of other's rights + borrowing/lending may also if the circumstances make it equivalent to an outright taking

Front 115

s6(1) TA 1968 was interpreted in which case ?

Back 115

R v Lloyd (1985)

Front 116

Case centering around intention to permanently deprive s6(1) ?

Back 116

R v Lloyd (1985)

Front 117

Facts of Lloyd 1985 ?

Back 117

Projectionist who removed films, passing to the appellants who made copies and sold them, films then returned. Conviction of conspiracy to steal, appealed

Front 118

Issue in Lloyd 1985 ?

Back 118

In construing the statute section was there intention to perm deprive even though intention for owner to get back the object ?

Front 119

Outcome of Lloyd 1985 ?

Back 119

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed - judge had misdirected jury. The section was for eg when D took things and offered them back to the owner for him to buy (candle fat, painting) or where virtue had gone such as spent railway tickets/batteries etc

Front 120

Case regarding 6(1) where co accountant drew cheques from and placed proceeds into own account arguing no permanent deprivation as they could insist on deserve being reversed ?

Back 120

R v Chan Man-Sin (1988)

Front 121

Outcome Chan Man-Sin (1985) ?

Back 121

Dismissed argument as his intention was obviously 'to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights' - guilty

Front 122

CA case D obtaining Tube tickets that were used but unexpired and selling them on ?

Back 122

R v Marshall (1998)

Front 123

Marshall 1998 outcome ?

Back 123

Argued he didn't have intention to permanently deprive but conviction upheld - in reselling had shown intention of treating the tickets as own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights

Front 124

Lloyd 1985 going forward ?

Back 124

Not overruled therefore if something not taken for sell back or spent on some way would appear to be valid interpretation of 6(1)

Front 125

s6(2) states ?

Back 125

Without prejudice to the generality [of s6(1)] above, where a person, having possession of control (lawfully of not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other's authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless if the other's rights

Front 126

Example of application of 6(2) ?

Back 126

Pawning - amounts to an intention to permanently deprive - had parted with the property under a condition to its return which may not be able to perform (ie paying the pawn money back). Own belief in chances of payback are irrelevant !

Front 127

Case that involved an employee borrowing money from their employer intending to definitely repay it ?

Back 127

R v Velumuyl (1989)

Front 128

And importance of Velumuyl 1989 ?

Back 128

Demonstrates that since repayment will not be the same notes that borrowing intending to repay is still theft