Theft

Question 1

only need to assume any single right of owner

Answer 1

Morris [1984]

Question 2

Why is the case of Lawrence v MPC significant?

Answer 2

appropriation is still present even when consent is present

Question 3

DPP v Gomez [1993] case significance; clue: Lawrence

Answer 3

consent is irrelevant to appropriation

Question 4

Why can valid gifts be problematic?

Answer 4

Hinks [2000]- can amount to theft

Question 5

Which section of the Theft Act governs the element of appropriation?

Answer 5

s.3 TA 1968

Question 6

What is the max sentence the offence of theft carries?

Answer 6

7 years imprisonment- s.7

Question 7

What is the AR of Theft?

Answer 7

appropriation
of property
belonging to another

Question 8

MR of Theft

Answer 8

dishonesty
intention to permanently deprive

Question 9

Does an authorised taking of property amount to appropriation? USE CASE LAW

Answer 9

YES. Consent is irrelevant to appropriation. Gomes [1993], resolving conflict between Lawrence [1972] and Morris [1984]

Question 10

Explain the decision in Hinks [2000]. How does it affect the law of theft?

Answer 10

one could be guilty of a valid gift. AR of theft is now incredibly wide, liability depends on MR- dishonesty

Question 11

What is a thing in action?

Answer 11

intangible property- a credit in a bank account, a copyright, a company

Question 12

What is s.5 (4) about?

Answer 12

D obtains property by mistake- belongs to another

Question 12

What is s.5 (3) about?

Answer 12

legal obligation on D to deal with property in a particular way- belongs to another

Question 13

When does an intention to temporarily deprive amount to theft? remember F, L, C, L- case law

Answer 13

s.6 (1); Fernandes [1996]- did D treat the property as his own to dispose of
DPP v Lavender [1994]- to dispose of means to deal with- wide approach
Cahill [1993]- to dispose of- narrow approach
Lloyd [1985]- mere borrowing is not enough

Question 14

What were the problems with Ghosh?

Answer 14

-too much unnecessary reliance on D’s state of mind
-confusing for jurors to understand
-divergence between civil and criminal law
-inconsistency in trials due to grounds on which it can be contested
-Jury’s standards may not be those of the ordinary decent people-hypocrisy

Question 15

Ivey also didn’t solve the problem fully

Answer 15

-parliamentary supremacy issues- Parliament had a chance to depart from Ghosh during the enactment of the Fraud Act, but chose to remain silent; Dyson and Jarvis agree- they intended for the subjective limb to do the job
-theft is too expanded, in light of Hinks it now requires neither proof of harm nor subjective fault- the innocence of anyone who genuinely believes his conduct to be proper by the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable people can be seen as an important limit; and rejecting it extends the offence of theft yet further

Question 16

mere borrowing is not theft

Answer 16

Lloyd [1985]

Question 17

intention to treat property as one’s own

Answer 17

DPP v Lavender

Question 18

in theft gain is not important it is the deprivation

Answer 18

Coffey [1987]