• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/73

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

73 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Which section of what Act does Theft come under?

S1 Theft Act 1968

S1 Theft Act 1968

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

Actus Reus of Theft

1. Appropriates


2. Property


3. Belonging to another

Which section does appropriation come under?

S3 Theft Act 1968

S3 Theft Act 1968

"Any assumption by a person of the rights as an owner amounts to an appropriation".

Examples of rights of an owner

The right to touch, sell, consume, etc.

R v Pitham and Hehl (1977)

Defendant sold the victim's furniture without consent. Held that an offer to sell can amount to an appropriation of the owner's rights, even if the owner is never deprived of the property.

R v Morris (1983)

Held that not all rights of the owner need to be assumed.

Corocran v Anderton (1980)

Simply touching property can amount to an appropriation.

R v Lawrence (1971)

Victim offered to pay taxi driver £1 for 50p fare, however the defendant said this was not enough and helped himself to another £6. Held that the consent needs to be true to what the defendant is actually doing.

R v Hinks (2000)

If the defendant is dishonest in appropriating a gift, this can amount to theft.

Later Assumption of a Right

S3 (1) Theft Act 1968 states a later assumption of the rights as an owner can occur if the defendant later decides to keep property, such as a rented DVD.

Which section does Property come under?

S4 (1) Theft Act 1968

S4 (1) Theft Act 1968

"Property includes money and all other property real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property".

R v Kelley and Lindsay (1998)

Kelly asked Lindsay to take body parts from the Royal College of Surgeons for use in a sculpture. Held that body parts were still property as they had acquired "different attributes by virtue of the application of skill, such as dissection and preservation techniques, for exhibition or teaching purposes".

Money

Coins and banknotes. Fake currency is NOT money.

Real Property

Land and Buildings

In what situations can real property be stolen under S4 (2) Theft Act 1968?

1. A trustee/personal representative takes land on a breach of his duties as a trustee/personal representative.


2. Someone not in possession of the land severs anything forming part of the land, such as digging up turves or dismantling a wall to steal the bricks.


3. A tenant takes a fixture or structure from the land let to him, such as taps from a property.

Personal Property

Anything else really.

Things In Action

A right which can be enforced against another person by an action in law.

Examples of Things In Action.

Bank accounts, cheques, copyright and patent trademarks, tickets, etc.

Other Intangible Property

No physical presence.

Attorney General of Hong Kong v Chan Nai Keung (1987)

An export quota is a form of intangible property which can be stolen.

Oxford v Moss (1979)

Held that knowledge of the questions on an exam paper is not intangible property.

Where in the statute does it state what cannot be stolen?

S4 (3) and (4) Theft Act 1968

S4 (3) Theft Act 1968

Fungi, flowers, fruit or foliage growing in the wild cannot be stolen, unless stolen with the intention of selling them for a reward or commercial purpose.

S4 (4) Theft Act 1968

Wild creatures cannot be stolen.

S11 Theft Act 1968

Makes it an offence to dishonestly use electricity without due authority, or dishonestly causing it to be wasted or diverted.

Which section does Belonging To Another come under?

S5 (1) Theft Act 1968

S5 (1) Theft Act 1968

"Any other person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest".

Turner (No. 2) (1971)

Defendant took his car from a garage whilst repairs were still being carried out. Held to be theft as the garage was still in possession of the car.

R v Woodman (1974)

Company sold all their scrap metal but unbeknownst to them a tiny bit was left, which the defendant stole. Liable for theft as it was held the metal still belonged to the company as they were in possession of it, despite being unaware of this possession.

What does S5 Theft Act 1968 suggest about some situations regarding "belonging to another".

Defendant can be guilty even if the property doesn't "belong to another"; where the defendant has acted dishonestly and caused loss to another or made a gain.

Situations in which a defendant can be liable if property doesn't "belong to another".

1. Trust property, where a trustee can steal it.


2. Property received under an obligation.


3. Property received by another's mistake.

Trust property liability

S5 (2) Theft Act 1968.


A trustee in control of a property can breach that trust if they start decorating, selling the house, etc.

S5 (3) Theft Act 1968

"Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to return and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way"


There must be an obligation to deal with an retain the property in a particular way.

R v Hall (1973)

Travel agent received deposits from customers and paid into the company account but failed to organise holidays. Held not liable as he was not under an obligation to deal with deposits in a particular way.

R v Kilneberg and Marsden (1999)

Defendants sold apartments to customers expecting the money to be held by an independent trust company. Defendants failed to fulfill this obligation and "retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way", and so they were liable.

R v Wain (1995)

Defendant raised money for charity and paid this into a special bank account. Then loaned the money with the obligation to pay it back, however failed to do this. Held liable as he could not follow his obligation and it was also held the money needed did not have to be the same coins and notes borrowed.

Davidge v Bunnett (1984)

The defendant was given money by her flatmates to pay a gas bill but brought Christmas presents instead. Held to be theft due to obligation to pay the gas bill with the money.

Where in the statute does property obtained by mistake come under?

S5 (4) Theft Act 1968

S5 (4) Theft Act 1968

"Where a person gets property by another's mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration of the property or its proceeds...and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive".

Attorney General's Reference (No. 1 of 1983) (1985)

Defendant's salary was paid into her bank account, however she was overpaid one month. She was under an "obligation to make restoration", however did not do this as she did not pay the money back. Held that if there is a dishonest intention not to make restoration, then all elements of theft are present.

Dishonestly introduction

If all elements of theft are present, then the defendant's motive is not relevant.

What is laid out in S2 (1) Theft Act 1968?

Behaviour which is not dishonest.

What behaviour is not dishonest?

a) He has a right in law to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or


b) He would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or


c) The person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

What is important to remember regarding behaviour which is not dishonest?

The situations depend on the defendant's belief, and it doesn't matter whether this belief was a mistake or if it was unreasonable.

R v Robinson (1977)

If the defendant takes money he is owed in the belief he has a right in law to take it, they have not been dishonest under S2 (1) (a) Theft Act 1968.

Taking a can of beer from a housemate's room and leaving the money to cover the cost.

If the defendant genuinely believes the housemate would have consented to this taking, they have not been dishonest under S2 (1) (b) Theft Act 1968.

Finding a £5 note at the side of the road.

If the owner of this money cannot be traced using reasonable steps, and the defendant keeps the money, then they have not been dishonest under S2 (1) (c) Theft Act 1968.

Willing to pay section and statute.

S2 (2) Theft Act 1968.

S2 (2) Theft Act 1968

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

R v Ghosh (1982)

Defendant took money from a hospital account he believed he was owed to cover the cost of examinations he undertook. This case established the 2 part test to determine dishonesty.

Ghosh (1982) 2-Part Test

1. Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?




2. Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?

Objective question of Ghosh (1982) 2-part test.

1. Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?

Subjective question of Ghosh (1982) 2-part test.

Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?

S6 (1) Theft Act 1968

"He can be regarded as having the intention to deprive the other of it permanently if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of, regardless of the owner's rights".

R v Velumyl (1989)

Defendant borrowed money from office safe as he was owed money by a friend, and intended to repay this money once he himself had been repaid. Held liable for theft as he had the intention to permanently deprive the office of the banknotes taken, despite intending to return money of the same value.

What is the situation regarding borrowing?

Not theft unless taken for a period in the circumstances which makes it equivalent to an outright taking/disposal.

R v Lloyd (1985)

Keeping property until "the goodness, the virtue, the practical value...has gone out of the article" is theft.

R v Easom (1970)

Defendant picked up lady's handbag, rummaged through its contents, then replaced it without taking anything. Held a conditional intention to deprive is not enough.

Intention to treat the thing as his own.

If the defendant has the intention to treat the property as his own, regardless of the other's rights, he has the intention to permanently deprive.

R v Raphael and Another (2008)

The defendant stole a car before trying to sell it back to the victim. Held that the definition under S6 (1) Theft Act 1968 includes when the defendant has made an offer to return property to the victim with a condition inconsistent with the victim's rights as possession of his own property.

S8 Theft Act 1968

"A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force".

What does a completed theft mean?

All elements of theft need to be present (Corcoran v Anderton, 1980).

What does force or threat of force mean?

The force used does not need to be great and the victim does not need to fear force. If the defendant merely seeks to use force or put the victim in fear of force, this is enough.

R v Dawson and James (1976)

Held that "force" is an ordinary word and it's for the jury to decide whether force was used. This force could be the slightest touch and it must be in order to steal.

P v DPP (2012)

Not guilty of robbery if no direct contact, so force cannot be said to be used "on any person".

B and R v DPP (2007)

No need to show that the victim was threatened. There can be an implied threat of force and the amount of force used does not have to be great.

"On any person" explanation

The person threatened does not have to be the person from whom the theft occurs.

R v Hale (1979)

Theft can be a continuous act so force after the appropriation can be at the time of theft and constitute robbery.

Force "in order to steal" explanation

If the force was not in order to steal, any later theft would not be charged as robbery. Such defendants would instead be charged with assault/battery and theft as separate offences.

Mens Rea of Robbery

There must be the Mens Rea of the completed theft and an intent (direct or indirect) to use force to steal.