Theft

Question 1

Theft, actus reus factors:

Answer 1

1. Appropriation;
2. Property;
3. Belonging to another.

Question 2

Theft, appropriation:

Answer 2

s. 3(1).
It is because ownership conveys a bundle of rights that appropriation is satisfied by the assumption of any rights rather than all of the rights of ownership, R v Morris.
Consent, Gomez: consent is not relevant to the question of appropriation.
R v Hincks: defendant encouraged victim, of limited intelligence, to gift money. Despite consent, held that it was theft if dishonestly induced.

Question 3

Theft, property:

Answer 3

s. 4(1).
Not corpses - R v Kelly.
Confidential information - Oxford v Moss.

Question 4

Theft, belonging to another:

Answer 4

s. 5(1).
Wain: anyone who collects money for charity should be liable if he keeps it for his own use, even where mingled with own funds.
Hall: travel agent received payments from customers to purchase holidays, but did not and moved it to general trading account. Not liable for theft because he had not merged money.

s. 5(4) - mistake, still belongs to original owners. Failure to return amounts to theft, D must know mistake occurred, Re AG’s Ref.

R v Rostron: just because they were abandoned, did not mean they didn’t have possession and control over them.

Question 5

Theft, mens rea factors:

Answer 5

1. Dishonesty;

2. Intention to permanently deprive.

Question 6

Theft, mens rea, dishonesty:

Answer 6

s. 2(1) - statement of situations which are not honest.
Ivey v Genting Casinos:
1. What was the accused’s state of mind?
2. Would this be considered dishonest by ordinary and reasonable people?
Per Lord Hughes in Ivey, the Ghosh test effectively meant that ‘any defendant whose subjective standards were sufficiently warped would be entitled to acquittal.’
Although obiter, rather than binding precedent in criminal cases, the SC judgment shows agreement between five judges, two of which are previous or current Presidents of the SC.

Question 7

Theft, mens rea, intentional to permanently deprive:

Answer 7

s. 6(1). Includes situations where property is taken on a temporary basis so goes beyond what might ordinarily be thought of as permanent deprivation.
R v Lloyd: CoA held that borrowing would amount to outright taking only where the property is returned in such a changed state that all its goodness and virtue were gone.

Question 8

R v Turner (no. 2):

Answer 8

D had car repaired at garage, then collected it without paying the bill.
Garage was in possession and control of the car so although D was the proprietary owner, he still took property belonging to another.

Question 9

R v Velumyl

Answer 9

The defendant took money from the company safe, intending to return the money after the weekend. Held to still be guilty, because the court said that if she wasn’t intending to return the exact notes or coins then she still had the intention to permanently deprive the employer of the original notes and coins.