dishonesty offenses

Question 1

What are the 5 elements of theft under s.1?

section 1 of the Theft Act 1968

Answer 1

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
1. Appropriation (AR)
1. Property (AR)
1. Belonging to another (AR)
1. Dishonesty (MR)
1. Intention to permanently deprive (MR)
All must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Question 2

What constitutes ‘appropriation’ (s.3)?

section 3(1)

Answer 2

Partially defined in section 3(1), any assumption of the rights of an owner
* Morris [1984], Lord Roskill held that it suffices if D assumes one of the rights.

Question 3

Appropriation Key Cases

Answer 3

• Lawrence: Taxi driver took excess cash from wallet = theft (consent vitiated by deception).
• Morris [1984]: Swapping price tags = appropriation (assuming any owner’s right).
• Gomez [1993]: Even valid consent can be appropriation if dishonest (expands Lawrence).
• Hinks [2001]: Accepting gifts from a vulnerable person = theft (no need for “adverse interference”).
  Controversy: Gomez/Hinks criticized for over-criminalizing consensual transactions (Ormerod, 2007).

Question 4

What is excluded from “property”?

Answer 4

• Confidential information (Oxford v Moss [1978]: Student copied exam answers = no theft).
• Human bodies (unless skill applied, e.g., preserved specimens).

Question 5

What is the Ivey test for dishonesty?

Answer 5

1. What was D’s actual knowledge/belief?
2. Would ordinary people consider D’s conduct dishonest?

Question 6

key Ivey cases and criticism

Answer 6

• Ivey v Genting [2017]: Abolished Ghosh test (no longer need D to realize conduct was dishonest).
• Barton & Booth [2020]: Exploiting elderly victims = dishonest under Ivey.

Criticism: Ivey removes subjective element, risking unfairness (Dennis, 2018).

Question 7

What is intention to permanently deprive (s6)?

Answer 7

• Equivalent to ownership (Lloyd [1985]: Borrowing film reels = theft if “goodness emptied”).
• Conditional intent (Mitchell [2008]: Taking items to later decide what to keep = theft).

Tricky Scenario: “Pawning” items with intent to reclaim = theft (Velumyl [1989]).

Question 8

What are the three ways to commit fraud (s1)?

Fraud Act 2006

Answer 8

1. False representation (s.2).
2. Failing to disclose information when legally obliged (s.3).
3. Abuse of position (s.4).

Key Debate: Ormerod (2007) argues the Act criminalizes lying too broadly (e.g., “fraud by omission”).

Case Example: DPP v Patterson [2017]: Fake Uber driver = fraud by false representation.

Question 9

What are some scholarly critiques?

Answer 9

• Overlap Issues: Gomez and fraud laws create redundancy (Griew, Theft Acts).
• Moral Wrongfulness: Hinks blurs civil gifts vs. criminal theft (Shute, 2002).
  * Cyber-Theft Gaps: Laws lag behind digital property (Law Com. No. 379).