Theft

Question 1

What is the historical predecessor to the modern offence of theft

Answer 1

Larceny under the Larceny Act 1916.

Question 2

What are the five elements required for theft under the Theft Act 1968

Answer 2

Dishonestly (MR) / Appropriates (AR) / Property (AR) / Belonging to another (AR) / With the intention of permanently depriving (MR).

Question 3

Is it relevant whether the appropriation is made for the thief’s own benefit

Answer 3

No - Section 1(2) states it is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or for the thief’s own benefit.

Question 4

Can land be stolen under the Theft Act 1968

Answer 4

Generally no - except under Section 4(2)(b) where someone not in possession of land appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it.

Question 5

What is a “thing in action” in the context of theft

Answer 5

A right that can be enforced by legal action such as a debt (e.g. money in a bank account as established in Kohn 1979).

Question 6

Can electricity be stolen under the Theft Act 1968

Answer 6

No - electricity is not considered “property” but dishonestly using or diverting electricity is a separate offence under Section 13.

Question 7

What did the court hold in Low v Blease (1975)

Answer 7

Electricity is not “other intangible property” under Section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

Question 8

Can confidential information be stolen

Answer 8

No - Oxford v Moss (1979) held that confidential information is not “other intangible property” - only the physical medium containing it can be stolen.

Question 9

Can body parts be stolen according to Kelly (1998)

Answer 9

Parts of a corpse can be property if they have acquired different attributes through the application of skill like preservation techniques.

Question 10

Is picking wild mushrooms or flowers from land considered theft

Answer 10

No unless it is done for reward sale or other commercial purpose (Section 4(3)).

Question 11

What makes property “belong to another” under Section 5 of the Theft Act

Answer 11

Property belongs to anyone having possession or control of it or any proprietary right or interest in it.

Question 12

Can you steal something from someone who possesses it unlawfully

Answer 12

Yes - Smith (2011) held that property can belong to another even if their possession is unlawful if they have possession or control.

Question 13

Can you be in possession/control of property while being unaware of its existence

Answer 13

Yes - Woodman (1974) held that control of a site by excluding others is control of articles on the site even if unaware of specific items.

Question 14

Can you steal your own property

Answer 14

Yes - Turner (No 2) (1971) established that one can steal one’s own property where another has possession or control of it.

Question 15

What is the definition of “appropriation” under Section 3 of the Theft Act

Answer 15

Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation.

Question 16

Is consent relevant to appropriation

Answer 16

No - Lawrence (1971) and Gomez (1993) established that consent is irrelevant to appropriation.

Question 17

Must all rights of the owner be assumed for appropriation to occur

Answer 17

No - Morris (1984) established that assuming “any” of the rights of the owner is sufficient for appropriation.

Question 18

What was decided in Eddy v Niman (1981) and why is it no longer good law

Answer 18

The court initially held taking an item from a shelf to examine it is not theft but following Gomez this is no longer good law.

Question 19

Can gifts be appropriated

Answer 19

Yes - Hinks (2000) held that a defendant could be guilty of theft even if the victim had made a valid gift in civil law terms.

Question 20

What was Lord Steyn’s justification for the majority position in Hinks

Answer 20

Consent is immaterial to appropriation - “appropriation” is a neutral term and the mental requirements of theft provide protection.

Question 21

What was Lord Hobhouse’s dissenting opinion in Hinks

Answer 21

If civil law states something is a gift criminal law should not classify it as theft as “the law should speak with one voice.”

Question 22

Does appropriation require physical taking and carrying away of property

Answer 22

No - Pitham and Hehl (1997) established that appropriation does not require physical taking and carrying away.

Question 23

What are the three situations not considered dishonest under Section 2(1)

Answer 23

Belief in legal right to deprive / Belief in owner’s consent if they knew circumstances / Belief owner cannot be discovered.

Question 24

For Section 2(1)(a) does the belief in a right to deprive need to be reasonable

Answer 24

No - Holden (1991) established that a genuine belief is sufficient even if unreasonable.

Question 25

What is the current test for dishonesty in criminal law

Answer 25

The Ivey test (2017): determine what the individual knew then ask if an ordinary decent person would consider it dishonest.

Question 26

What was the Ghosh test and why is it no longer good law

Answer 26

Two-part test (dishonest by reasonable standards and realized this) overturned in Ivey (2017) as the second limb was problematic.

Question 27

In Barton and Booth (2020) what did Lord Burnett suggest about the Ivey test and Section 2

Answer 27

If a case passes the Ivey test it automatically satisfies Section 2 potentially reducing the need for separate directions.

Question 28

What is the extended definition of "intention to permanently deprive" under Section 6(1)

Answer 28

Treating the thing as one's own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights even without intent for permanent loss.

Question 29

When can borrowing amount to an intention to permanently deprive

Answer 29

When borrowing is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

Question 30

What test did the court establish in Lloyd (1985) regarding intention to permanently deprive

Answer 30

No theft unless "all the goodness or virtue had gone" from the property.

Question 31

In Velumyl (1989) why was taking cash with intention to return the same value considered theft

Answer 31

The intention was not to return the specific notes taken but only equivalent value constituting intention to permanently deprive.

Question 32

What does Section 6(2) say about parting with property under conditions

Answer 32

Parting with property under a condition as to its return which one may not be able to perform amounts to treating it as one's own.

Question 33

What was established in Fernandes (1996) regarding risk

Answer 33

Risking the loss of property is sufficient for conviction under constructive intent to permanently deprive.

Question 34

In Mitchell (2008) what distinction did Lord Justice Rix make between theft and taking without authority

Answer 34

Section 12 exists because a car taken for a ride and abandoned is not easily found to be theft.

Question 35

What is the actus reus of "making off without payment"

Answer 35

Payment on the spot is required or expected.

Question 36

What are the three elements of mens rea for "making off without payment"

Answer 36

Knowledge payment on spot required / Dishonesty / Intent to avoid payment of the amount due.

Question 37

In Allen (1985) what did the Court of Appeal require regarding intent to avoid payment

Answer 37

An intent to avoid payment permanently not just at the time expected.

Question 38

What is the purpose of Section 11 (Removal of articles from places open to the public)

Answer 38

To address cases of removing items with intent to return which wouldn't qualify as theft due to lack of intention to permanently deprive.

Question 39

What offence addresses "joyriding"

Answer 39

Section 12 (Taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority).

Question 40

What is the penalty for abstracting electricity under Section 13

Answer 40

Up to five years imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

Question 41

In Turner (No 2) why was taking one's own car from a garage considered theft

Answer 41

Because the garage had "possession or control" of the car making it property "belonging to another" even though Turner owned it.

Question 42

In Raphael (2008) why was holding a car to ransom considered theft

Answer 42

Demanding £500 for return constituted treating the car as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights.

Question 43

In Gomez (1993) what were the key questions put to the House of Lords

Answer 43

Whether appropriation occurs when property passes with consent obtained by deception and if passing requires adverse interference.

Question 44

In Woodman (1974) what was the significance of controlling the site

Answer 44

Control of a site by excluding others demonstrates control of articles on that site even if unaware of specific items.

Question 45

Why was the defendant in Lloyd (1985) not guilty of theft

Answer 45

The projectionist returned film reels with no impact on the cinema - no intention to permanently deprive as not "all goodness or virtue had gone."