theft, burglary , robbery Flashcards
(36 cards)
only need to assume any single right of owner
Morris [1984]
why is the case of Lawrence v MPC significant
appropriation is still present even when consent is present
DPP v Gomez [1993] case significance; clue: Lawrence
consent is irrelevant to appropriation
why can valid gifts be problematic?
Hinks [2000] - can amount to theft
which section of the Theft Act governs the element of appropriation?
s.3 TA 1968
what is the max sentence the offence of theft carries?
7 years imprisonment - s.7
what is the AR of Theft
appropriation of property belonging to another
MR of Theft
dishonesty, intention to permanently deprive
does an authorised taking of property amount to appropriation? USE CASE LAW
YES. consent is irrelevant to appropriation. Gomes [1993], resolving conflict between Lawrence [1972] and Morris [1984]
explain the decision in Hinks [2000]. how does it affect the law of theft?
one could be guilty of a valid gift. AR of theft is now incredibly wide, liability depends on MR- dishonesty
what is a thing in action?
intangible property- a credit in a bank account, a copyright, a company
what is s.5 (4) about?
D obtains property by mistake - belongs to another
what is s.5 (3) about?
legal obligation on D to deal with property in a particular way - belongs to another
when does an intention to temporarily deprive amount to theft? F,L,C,L -CASE
s.6 (1);
Fernandes [1996] - did D treat the property as his own to dispose of
DPP v Lavender [1994] - to dispose of means to deal with - wide approach
Cahill [1993] - to dispose of - narrow approach
Lloyd -[ 1985] - mere borrowing is not enough
mere borrowing is not theft
Lloyd [1985]
intention to treat property as one’s own
DPP v Lavander
in theft, gain is not important it is the deprivation
Coffey [1987]
AR - robbery - s.38 TA 1968
steal + threat of force or application of force
since one right is sufficient for appropriation, which case shows what can be sufficient for
Corcoran v Anderton [1980] - tugging at Vs back and causing V to drop it on the ground
the element of AR - force- case
Dawson v James [1977]
snatching a cigarette is not enough for the requirement of
P v DPP [2013]
intention to steal is the reason for the force
Codsi [2009]
force is to be used before or at the time of stealing
Hale [1979]
indirect application of force will also suffice
R v Martins [2021]