Theft Flashcards
Theft Act 1968: dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive (6 cards)
Introductory thoughts
Proudhon: property is theft
Simester and Sullivan: “theft is concerned directly and primarily with protecting the legal structure of proprietary entitlements”
Property (section 4)
R v Smith: illegal property (e.g. drugs) is still property
Sharpe: traditional view is that bodies are not property
R v Kelly: if someone has exercised special skill in relation to a corpse/part of a body (e.g. body parts kept for teaching purposes) it may amount to property
Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust: bodily products kept for specific purposes (e.g. sperm bank) may be considered property
Belonging to another (section 5)
R v Turner (No.2): owner can be convicted of theft of their own property; garage at the time D took the car had ownership rights
R v Meredith: contrary view- D was not convicted of having stolen his car from the council
R v Rostron and Collinson: picking up lost golf balls still theft even though golf club didn’t know they were there and never intended to collect them
R v Gilles: obligation in s5(3) must be a legal obligation
R v Hall: D must be obliged to deal with that property in a particular way (travel agent case)
Appropriation (section 3)
R v Morris: even just picking items at a store (or switching price tags)
R v Gomez: consent of the owner is irrelevant; manager consented to sale accepting a fake cheque
- S. Gardner: welcomes Gomez; “the quality of dishonest conduct is not necessarily altered by the victim’s consent”
- Lord Lowry dissenting judgment: placed much weight on the view that the decision of the majority was not in line with the view of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, whose report formed the basis of the Theft Act 1968
R v Hinks: appropriation despite the valid gift; “In practice the mental requirements of theft are an adequate protection against injustice” (Lord Steyn)
- S. Gardner: this protects vulnerable people from abuse/exploitation
Melissaris: Gomez appropriation is a direct breach of RoL, particularly fair warning; recipients of a valid gift cannot be sure whether they’re committing a criminal act and do not know the legal meaning of their actions
Intention to permanently deprive (section 6)
R v Velumyl: still intention even where D intended to return something similar/equivalent value
R v Easom: picking up handbag and looking through didn’t meet it because D intended to deprive anything of value (which was nothing in the handbag)
R v Mitchell: disposal requires concealment; leaving car with headlights on in clear view and easily found showed no intention to permanently deprive
R v Lloyd: taking films from movie cinema and then returning them after making copies is not permanent deprivation
DPP v SJ: D took V’s headphones and snapped them- value completely depleted, permanent deprivation
Dishonesty (section 2)
R v Small: for the purposes of S2(1)(a) belief doesn’t have to be reasonable/accurate or based on any accurate understanding of the law
R v Holden: for the purposes of s2(1)(b) doesn’t have to be a reasonable belief as long as it’s an honest one
R v Ghosh: original test for dishonesty; first decide whether act dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, and then determine whether D realised this
Ivey v Genting Casinos: what are the facts as D genuinely believed them? Taking this as context, would the ordinary, decent person think this dishonest?
R v Barton and Booth: confirmed that Ivey represents the current law
Fafinsky and Finch: study found divergence on a range of issues; when asked whether it was dishonest for a carer to persuade an elderly person to leave them something after death, 43% though it was dishonest, 57% did not
