Theft Flashcards
R v Vinall 2011
2 men out cycling they encountered the defendants who subjected them to verbal abuse and punched one from his bike. The D’s walked away having picked up the bike and left it at a bus shelter 45m away.
Issues of appropriation. The thief must do something which assumes at least one of the owners rights.
Lawrence v commissioner for met police (1972)
Italian student who spoke little English showed an address to Lawrence (a taxi driver) journey should cost 50p student gave him £1 driver said it wasn’t enough so student opened his wallet and allowed Lawrence to help himself to another £6. Lawrence put forward argument he hadn’t appropriated money and student consented. Court stated there was appropriation.
R v Hinks 2000
D was friendly with John aged 53 who was of limited intelligence but understood the concept of ownership of property and making a valid gift. In over a year period in 1996 mr Dolphin’s withdrew £60,000 and deposited them in D’s account. He lost most of his savings. HofL decided even though it was a valid gift, there was appropriation.
Oxford v Moss 1979
D was a uni student who required s proof of a test paper. It was accepted that D didn’t intend to Permanently deprive the uni of the piece of paper. But he was charged with theft of confidential information.
Property
R v Turner 1971
D left is car for repair at a garage, he agreed he would pay for the repairs when he collected the car. He used a spare key to take the car from the garage without paying. An owner can steal his or her own property if another has possession of it. Belonging to another
R v Webster 2006
An army sergeant was sent a duplicate medal by mistake. He sold it. The ministry of defence retained an equitable interest in the medal so D was guilty of theft.
R v Hall 1972
A travel agent revived travel deposits from customers he paid the money into the firms general account and did not arrange tickets for the customers. D was not under an obligation to deal with the deposits in a particular way under s 5(3) and so was not guilty of theft.
Attorney generals reference 1985
An overpayment was made by D’s employers into her bank account. By s 5(4) D was under an ‘obligation to make restoration’ if she did not then there was an appropriation of the property. Whether D was guilty of theft would depend on whether or not she acted dishonestly.
R v Small 1987
D took car as he believed it had been abandoned as was insane place for 2 weeks. It was unlocked and keys in ignition. D put petrol in tank and drove it off, as he pulled away he say police lights he panicked and ran away. He was convicted of theft. Later quashed as question was wether d had an honest belief that the owner could not be found.
Dishonestly
R v Ghosh 1982
Test for dishonesty. 2 elements:
- Was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standard of reasonable and honest people.
- Did the D realise that what they was doing was dishonest by those standards?
R v Velumyl 1989
D a manger took £1050 from office safe. Said he was going to replace it when his friend repaid him. Cof Appeal unhelpful conviction for theft as he had intention of peeminantly
Theft
A person is guilty of the fir if he/she dishonesty appropriates property belonging to another with intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
(Theft Act 1968)
