Theft

Question 1

What does S1 (1) Theft act 1968 state?

Answer 1

The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive

Question 2

Actus reus of S1 (1) Theft act 1968

Answer 2

1) Appropriation

2) Property

3) Belonging to another

Question 3

Men’s Rea of S1 (1) Theft act 1968

Answer 3

1) Dishonesty

2) Intention to permanently Deprive

Question 4

What does S3 state about Appropriation?

Answer 4

S3

“Any assumptions of the rights of the owner “

(R V Morris)

Question 5

Appropriation (R V Morris 1984)

Answer 5

D switched the price labels on certain items in a supermarket and then paid a lower price for them at the till than he should have

Lord Roskill:

“This amounted to an appropriation because the assumption of a right of the owner is sufficient”

Switching the price labels was an adverse interference with the owner’s rights

Question 6

Appropriation can happen when the victim consents (R V Gomez 1993)

Answer 6

The D was the assistant manager of a shop. He persuaded the manager to sell 17,000 pounds worth of goods to his accomplice and to accept what the D knew were to stolen cheques in return

He told the manager the cheques were “As good as cash” (faulty information or deception)

HELD:

There could be an appropriation of property even where the owner consents, if that consent is obtained by deception, and the D was found guilty of theft

Question 7

Gifts (R V Hinks 1998)

Answer 7

The D was the carer of an old man, the old man was naive, trusting and low of IQ

He would visit his building society with D on an almost daily basis, withdraw the maximum amount that he could and give it to her, the sum totalled up to 60,000

HELD:

Even though it was a gift, it still amounted to an appropriation by the D, the D was guilty of theft

Question 8

What does S4 state? (Property)

Answer 8

S4

“Money, real or personal property, things in action, other intangible property”

S4(3)

“Wild plants taken for reward or sale”

Question 9

R V Welsh (1974) (Property)

Answer 9

The D gave a urine sample to the police

When the officer left the room the D poured it down the drain

HELD:

Bodily fluids such as urine are property that is capable of being stolen

Question 10

Oxford V Moss (1978) (Property)

Answer 10

The D, a civil engineering student at Liverpool university, got hold of an examination paper, read its contents and returned the paper

HELD:

Confidential information itself is not property for the purposes of S4 of the Theft act, so he was not guilty of theft, and his conviction was quashed.

Question 11

“A thing in action” (Property)

Answer 11

Within a bank, there is no pile of money that’s contains your name on it, the bank owes you that money.

When money is stolen from a bank account, what is stolen is a “thing in action”- the V’s right to be paid that sum of money by the bank

R V Kohn 1979

The D was an accountant. Part of his job was to write cheques for the company to pay off its debts. He wore cheques to pay off his own personal debts

HELD:

D was guilty of stealing “a thing in action”

Question 12

Intangible Property (A-G for Hong Kong V Chan Nai-Keung 1987)

Answer 12

A company had a license to export textiles known as an “export quota”. If a company did not use all of its quota, it could sell its license for the remaining amount of textiles too another company

The D was a director of a company which had such a license. He arranged for it to be sold to another company, of which he was also a director, for a price that was far to low.

HELD:

The export Quota was intangible property and therefore was property under the Theft Act. By selling it at an undervalue, the D had appropriated it.

Question 13

Belonging to another S5(1)? (R V Turner)

Answer 13

S5(1)

“In another’s Possession or control, or another has proprietary interest” (an ownership right in it)

R V Turner (No 2) (1971)

The D took his car to the garage to get it repaired. He promised to pay for the repair when he returned to pick the car up the next day. He came back a few hours later when the car had been repaired, and he used his spare keys to pick the car up.

HELD:

The car was property belonging to another as it was under the possession and control of the garage, and D was guilty of theft.

Question 14

Belonging to another (R V Woodman 1974) S5(1)

Answer 14

V owed some business premises which were discussed. He sold the scrap metal on the site to another person, who left some of it behind because it was to difficult to access, the site was fenced off

The D came on to the scrap site and took some of the remaining scrap metal

HELD:

The property belonged to the V as it was in his possession and control. D was guilty of theft.

Question 15

Belonging to another S5(3) (Davidge V Bunnett)

Answer 15

Given to D for specific purpose and needs to be dealt with in a specific way

Davidge V Bunnett (1974)

A group of flatmates agreed to share the cost of their household bills.

They gave the money to the D to pay the gas bill, which the D then spent on Christmas presents.

HELD:

The money had been given to the D for a specific purpose, belonged to another and the D was guilty of theft.

Question 16

Belonging to another S5(3) (R V Wain 1995)

Answer 16

D organised charity fundraising events, from which the money was ultimately paid into his own bank account with the consent off the charity. He was unable to account for some 2,800 pounds.

HELD:

He had an obligation to pay this sum of money to the charity, so it belonged to another

Question 17

Dishonesty (Men’s Rea) S.2

Answer 17

R V Ghosh 1982 (Leading case)

Established the test for Dishonesty: (BOTH ELEMENTS HAVE TO BE MET)

1) Was the D’s conduct dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?

2) Did the D realise that reasonable and honest people regard his conduct as dishonest?

Question 18

Dishonesty: Does the second part of the test need to be applied?

(Ivey V Genting Casinos 2017)

Answer 18

The Supreme Court stated:

“The second part of the test in Ghosh is not required”

(Obiter dicta)

Lord Hughes:

“The second leg of the test propounded in Ghosh does not correctly represent the law and directions based upon it ought no longer to be given”

Booth & Another V R (2020)

Lord chief justice:

“We are satisfied that the decision in Ivey is correct, is to be preferred, and that there is no obstacle in the doctrine of state decisis to its being applied as the law of England and Wales”

Question 19

Intention to permanently deprive S6(1)

Answer 19

D treats the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the owners right’s

R V Raphael 2008

The D took the V’s car from him by force, and demanded payments for its return.

HELD:

In placing a condition on the return of the car, he was treating the car as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights , and so had intention to permanently deprive

Question 20

Intention to permanently deprive S6(1) (R V Lloyd 1985)

Answer 20

D was a projectionist as the Oden cinema in Barking. He took films that were to be shown at the cinema and gave them to people who could make copies. The films were only out of the possession of the owners for a short period of a few hours.

HELD:

As the films could still be shown to audiences at he cinema, the goodness, virtue, and practical value of the films had not been diminished, and so intention to permanently deprive was not established

Question 21

Sentencing

Answer 21

Triable either way

Seven years under S13 Of The Criminal Justice Act 1991

Question 22

Intention to permanently deprive (DPP V Lavender 1994)

Answer 22

The D took two intact doors from a council property, and used them to replace two damaged doors in another council property of which his girlfriend was the tenant.

HELD:

Because the D was treating the doors as his own regardless of the owner’s rights, this was sufficient to qualify as intention to permanently deprive

Question 23

Intention to permanently deprive S6(1)

Answer 23

D has borrowed property in circumstances equivalent to outright taking or disposal of it

(R V Velumyl 1989)

The D, a company director “borrowed” some money from the company safe, intending to return it after the weekend.

HELD:

He had intention to permanently deprive the company of the specific money taken, as he could not replace the exact same notes