Theft (Mens Rea) Flashcards
What are the two components which form the mens rea of theft?
- Dishonestly
- Intention to permanently deprive
What does S.2(1) Theft Act 1968 set out?
What is not dishonesty
What is stated in S.2(1)(a) Theft Act 1968?
A belief of legal right to deprive the other of property is not dishonesty
What was held in R v Small?
The COA quashed the conviction as the defendant believed the owner couldn’t be found (S.2(1)(c))
What is stated in S.2(1)(b) Theft Act 1968?
If the defendant had an honest belief that the owner would consent to the appropriation if they knew of it in the circumstances then there is not dishonesty
What is stated in S.2(1)(c) Theft Act 1968?
If the owner of the property couldn’t be found by taking reasonable steps then there is not dishonesty
What did Lord Hughes state in the appeal to the House of Lords in Ivey v Genting Casinos?
Lord Hughes made a new test of dishonesty:
1. What was the defendants actual belief of the facts?
2. Was the conduct dishonest by the standards of a reasonable person?
Why was Lord Hughes in Ivey not binding?
He only stated that it will replace the Ghosh Test in obiter dicta in relation to criminal law, as it was a civil case
What was held in Barton and Booth v R?
The COA dismissed the appeal that Ghosh should have been used and proceeded with Ivey, making it binding precedent; they considered Ivey as a unanimous direction not to follow Ghosh
What is held in S.2(2) Theft Act 1968?
Even if the defendant is willing to pay for the theft, his actions are still dishonest
What was held in R v Velumyl?
The defendants conviction was upheld as he had the intention to permanently deprive the company of the banknotes he stole
What was held in DPP v Lavender?
The defendant used the doors as his own to dispose of by moving them from one property to another without permission, even though he wasn’t intending to permanently deprive the council
What is conditional intent?
The defendant examines property to see if anything is worth stealing and then returns it
What is held in R v Easom?
The defendant went through a bags contents and replaced it without stealing anything. His conviction was quashed as there was no intention to permanently deprive
