Theft Flashcards
(8 cards)
Theft Definition
“A person is guilty of the offence of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive them of it”
- s.1 (1) Theft Act 1968
Basic Intent Offence
Unlimited Fine +/ 7 years imprisonment
Theft Actus Reus
Theft Act 1968
s. 3 Appropriation
s. 4 Property
s. 5 Belonging to another
Theft Mens Rea
Theft Act 1968
s. 2 Dishonesty
s. 6 Intention to permanently deprive
Theft AR - Appropriation
Theft - S.3 Appropriation
R v Morris - D switched labels in a supermarket in order to pay less for an item - D assumed rights of ownership and therefore was a theft.
Oxford v Moss - D took an exam paper with the intention of returning it after studying it -Confidential information does not amount to intangible property
R v Lawrence - D was a taxi driver with a foreign passenger who did not understand the currency. D reached into the wallet and took way more than the fare was - D was only entitled to the fare and anything else was appropriation.
Pitham v Hehl - D sold furniture that did not belong to him - An appropriation had occurred as soon as the order to sell was placed.
Theft AR - Property
Theft - S.4 Property
Property is personal items, property isn’t wild plants, electricity or intangible items
Kelly and Lindsay - D took body part from RCS to draw for an art project - Property was not owned but it had a purpose therefore it was stealable
Theft AR - Belonging to Another
Theft - S.5 Belonging to Another
Property must be under the ownership of another person.
Turner No.2 - D picked up car from service without paying for it - Garage were exercising control over the car therefore it was not technically his to take back.
R v Hall - Travel Agent paid a deposit into wrong account, business collapsed and deposit was lost - D not liable for theft as there was no obligation for him to deal with the money in a certain way.
Davidge v Bunnett - D spent money meant for bills on xmas presents - D liable as there was a clear obligation on what the money was meant for.
Theft MR - Dishonesty
Theft - S.2 Dishonesty
D must have gone about obtaining the property in a way which an honest and reasonable person would deem as dishonest
R v Ghost - D claimed money for surgical operations he did not perform - Ghosh test: Jury decide whether the defendant’s actions were that of a reasonable and honest person.
Ivey v Genting Casinos - Poker player owed 7.7 million by casino who claimed he’d cheated his way to the winnings - Supreme Court ruled that if he had come about the winnings dishonestly, he was not entitled to them
Theft MR - Permanent Deprivation
Theft - S.6 Permanent Deprivation
D must intend to keep the property indefinitely and as if it was his to dispose of
R v Velumyl - D took money from company safe with intention to return amount on monday - Theft unless he returned the exact coins and notes he’d taken.
R v Lloyd - D took home films from cinema, copied them then returned them - No theft as he did not intend to permanently deprive the cinema of them.
