Theft - Essential

Front 1

Actus Rea - Theft

Back 1

Given in s1(1) of the Theft Act 1968, with terms further clarified within the act:
s3 appropriation
s4 property
s5 belonging to another

All must exist simultaneously with the Mens Rea

Front 2

Mens Rea - Theft

Back 2

Given in s1(1) of the Theft Act 1968, with terms further clarified within the act:
s2 Dishonestly
s6 With the intention to permanently deprive

All must exist simultaneously with the Actus Rea

Front 3

R v Morris

Back 3

it is enough that the prosecution prove "the assumption by the defendants of any of the rights of the owner of the goods in question" Lord Roskill

In this case, man replaced price stickers on items with lower-priced ones

Two important points emerge from this case:
1. The assumption of any one of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation.
2. D may be guilty of theft although he does not intend by the act of appropriation itself to deprive P permanently of the property.

Front 4

Consent and appropriation

Back 4

CAN appropriate property even with the consent of the owner (R v Gomez)

Front 5

R v Gomez

Back 5

CAN appropriate property even with the consent of the owner

Front 6

Theft of gifts

Back 6

As appropriation is a neutral act, there CAN be theft of gifts

Front 7

R v Hinks

Back 7

Woman took advantage of a man of limited intelligence, and encouraged him to give "gifts" of money. House of Lords held:
1. Appropriation is a neutral act and the state of mind of the donor is irrelevant to appropriation.
2. Therefore appropriation could take place with or without the consent of the owner.
3. Therefore a person could be guilty of stealing a valid inter vivos gift

Front 8

Later appropriation

Back 8

while all 5 elements of theft must occur simultaneously, s3(1) includes "any later assumption of a right"

Theft will therefore take place with the defendant forms the mens rea

Front 9

Continuing appropriation

Back 9

If the initial appropriation will amount to stealing, but the prosecution requires the theft to be taking lace at a later date in order to convict of robbery or aggravated burglary

Front 10

R v Hale

Back 10

appropriation could be a continuing rather than an instantaneous act

Front 11

Innocent purchaser

Back 11

section 3(2) exempts a defendant from liability for theft where the defendant purchases goods in good faith and for value and then later discovers that the seller had no title to the property but decides to keep it

Front 12

Williams v Phillips

Back 12

Courts rarely find that property has been abandoned; in this case, it was held that a householder does not abandon goods which he puts in his dustbin

Front 13

Hibbert v McKiernan

Back 13

Losing property and giving up searching for it does not amount to abandonment

Front 14

Possession or control

Back 14

Property can belong to persons who have possession or control not just of specified property, but over land upon which it was found - even if the owner of the land is unaware of its existence

Front 15

R v Woodman

Back 15

Factory owners had taken steps to exclude trespassers, and therefore had control of scrap metal which, unknown to them, had been left inside the factory

BTA case

Front 16

Parker v British Airways Board

Back 16

British Airways had not shown any intention to exercise control over the building and things in it; they could have demonstrated thais intention either expressly - e,g, by putting up a notice - or impliedly

Front 17

Turner (No. 2)

Back 17

you CAN steal your own property

Front 18

when will s 5(3) apply?

Back 18

s5(3) will apply where the accused is under a legal obligation to use the property of the purpose given

Front 19

R v Hall

Back 19

s5(3)

Travel agent took money for flights, and used the money to pay off debts, but subsequently went bankrupt and customers lost money.

s5(3) did not apply because it was not established that his clients expected him to retain and deal with the money in any particular way

Front 20

Davidge v Bunnett

Back 20

s5(3)

Flat sharers, one was given money to put towards the bills but instead used it for christmas presents. Theft.

Front 21

R v Breaks and Huggan

Back 21

s5(3) has no automatic application, and should be decided case to case

Front 22

R v Klineberg and Marsden

Back 22

s5(3)

Had given assurances that money would be safeguarded by payment to a stake-holding trust company, but this wasn't done and the money lost. Theft.

Front 23

R v Wain

Back 23

Raised money for charity, but it into a separate account, but did not hand it over. Then put it into his own bank account, and offered cheques which bounced. Theft.

Front 24

s5(4)

Back 24

Where someone is aware they have acquired property by mistake they are usually under a legal obligation to restore it

Front 25

A-G's reference (No.1 of 1983)

Back 25

Policewoman had to pay back the money she was given for overtime she didn't do but got paid for by mistake

It was held there is a legal obligation to restore money when Defendant realises it has been given to him by mistake

Front 26

s2(1)(c)

Back 26

You don't need to actively take steps to find the owner, just need to believe that such steps will not enable you to find the owner

Front 27

R v Robinson

Back 27

in relation to s2(1), belief does not need to be reasonably held, it just has to be genuine

Front 28

R v Ghosh

Back 28

Common law test for dishonesty
Jury must decide whether "according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest"
then the jury must question "whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest"

Front 29

Dishonest intent must be formed at the time when the goods belong to another

Back 29

cannot be convicted if the dishonest intent is formed after ownership of the property is passed

Front 30

Cocoran v Whent

Back 30

Ownership of food passes when it is eaten

Front 31

R v Lloyd

Back 31

"a mere borrowing is never enough to constitute the necessary guilty mind unless the intention is to return the "thing" in such a changed state that it can truly be said that all its goodness or virtue has gone"

Also: for ITPD use ordinary meaning (aim/purpose)

Front 32

R v Cahill

Back 32

Supported the dictionary definition of "dispose of": " To deal with definitely: to get rid of; to get done with, finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell."

Front 33

R v Scott

Back 33

took curtains from the store then intended to take them back for a refund. Theft, as she treated the thing as her own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights.

Front 34

R v Fernandes

Back 34

"We consider that section 6 may apply to a person in possession or control of another's property who, dishonestly and for his own purpose deals with that property in such a manner that he knows he is risking its loss"

Front 35

R v Mitchell

Back 35

The manner in which the car was left suggested that they knew the owner of the car would get it back. On that basis the defendant was successful in his appeal and his conviction was quashed, the defendant had not intended to treat the car as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights.
probably a particular point about cards

Front 36

R v Velumyl

Back 36

Borrowed money from his employer's safe meaning to return it once a debt had been repaid to him . Intending to return coins of equivalent value is not the same as intending to return the identical ones that were taken.

Front 37

Edwards v Ddin

Back 37

Cannot be theft if dishonest intent is formed after the title of the property has passed to the defendent