s. 1 Theft Act 1968 - Theft Flashcards
(11 cards)
Under s 3(1) TA 1968, “appropriation” means:
A. Taking without the owner’s consent only
B. Any assumption of the rights of an owner
C. Permanently depriving the owner of property
D. Transferring property to a third party
B. Any assumption of the rights of an owner
Explanation: “Appropriation” is defined as “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner” – it need not be without consent and can include acts such as selling or destroying the property
Which of the following cannot be stolen as “property” under s 4(1) TA 1968?
A. Money in a bank account
B. A fixed greenhouse severed by a tenant
C. Confidential information (e.g. company secrets)
D. Buildings
D. Buildings
Explanation: While “property” includes money, real or personal property, and intangibles, buildings themselves are expressly excluded from theft (they’re dealt with separately under s 4(2))
Sam picks mushrooms growing wild in a public park for a picnic—no reward or sale intended. Has he committed theft?
A. No – wild mushrooms picked for personal use are excluded
B. Yes – all plants are property
C. Yes – property belongs to the landowner
D. No – only animals are excluded
A. No – wild mushrooms picked for personal use are excluded
Explanation: Section 4(3) states that picking mushrooms (or flowers, fruit, foliage) from wild plants is not theft unless done for reward, sale, or commercial purpose
Lucy borrows Mike’s camera to use on holiday, intending to return it. Instead, she sells it. Which element of s 1 is this?
A. Appropriation
B. Dishonesty
C. Belonging to another
D. Intention to permanently deprive
C. Belonging to another
Explanation: At the moment of sale, the camera still “belonged to another” (Mike), satisfying the AR element under s 5(1) TA 1968
Alex buys a second-hand watch innocently, then discovers it’s stolen but keeps it. Which provision now completes the theft?
A. s 5(3) – property given for a particular purpose
B. s 2(1)(c) – owner cannot be found
C. s 6(2) – property parted with on condition
D. s 3(1) – later appropriation
D. s 3(1) – later appropriation
Explanation: When someone innocently acquires property then forms the mens rea, any subsequent keeping is a “later appropriation” under s 3(1) TA 1968
Emma genuinely believes her friend gifted her £200 she found in his coat, but is mistaken. Is her appropriation dishonest?
A. Yes – belief must be reasonable
B. No – an honest belief negates dishonesty
C. Yes – she should have known it wasn’t a gift
D. No – mistaken gifts are covered by s 5(4)
A. Yes – belief must be reasonable
Explanation: Under s 2(1)(b), D is not dishonest if she genuinely believes she has the owner’s consent—but the belief must be honestly held, not necessarily reasonable. However, if her belief isn’t honestly held, she is dishonest
The s 2(1)(c) defence requires D to believe that:
A. The property is irrecoverable by law
B. Taking reasonable steps would not discover the owner
C. The owner is deceased
D. The property was abandoned
B. Taking reasonable steps would not discover the owner
Explanation: Section 2(1)(c) applies when D believes that even if reasonable steps were taken, the owner could not be found – no actual search is required
Under s 6(1), borrowing may amount to “intention to permanently deprive” if:
A. D uses it for an indefinite period
B. The owner refuses its return
C. The borrowing is equivalent to an outright taking or disposal
D. D pays compensation
C. The borrowing is equivalent to an outright taking or disposal
Explanation: Section 6(1) states that borrowing or lending counts as permanent deprivation only if it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal
Under the Ivey v Genting refinement, the test for dishonesty is:
A. Would the defendant have known his conduct was wrong?
B. What was the defendant’s belief as to the facts, and would ordinary people regard it as dishonest?
C. Did the defendant intend to permanently deprive?
D. Was the defendant’s belief reasonable by legal standards?
B. What was the defendant’s belief as to the facts, and would ordinary people regard it as dishonest?
Explanation: Ivey v Genting (2017) splits dishonesty into (1) ascertain D’s actual belief as to the facts; (2) apply the objective “ordinary decent people” yardstick to those beliefs
Which of these is not one of the three s 2(1) “no‐dishonesty” defences?
A. D honestly believes he has a legal right to deprive the owner
B. D honestly believes the owner would consent if they knew the facts
C. D honestly believes the owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps
D. D honestly believes the property was abandoned
D. D honestly believes the property was abandoned
Explanation: The three defences are (a) honest belief in a legal right; (b) honest belief in consent; (c) honest belief the owner cannot be found by reasonable steps. There is no stand-alone “abandoned property” defence under s 2
After R v Hinks, if D receives genuine gifts from V but realizes they were procured by undue influence and keeps them, the applicable concept is:
A. Continuing appropriation (AR began when she first took the gift)
B. No theft, since gifts are valid
C. Later appropriation (a new AR occurs when D forms mens rea)
D. Attempted theft only
C. Later appropriation (a new AR occurs when D forms mens rea)
Explanation: R v Hinks confirms that an innocent gift can become theft once D, having initially received it legitimately, later forms dishonest intent—this is a “later appropriation” under s 3(1)
