Theft Essay Plan

Question 1

Appropriation Critique (broad)

Answer 1

**Appropriation = interpretated broadly
**

R v Pitham: assuming rights of the owner. Not necessarily all rights either – just a right can suffice

R v Morris analyse how even swapping labels suffices

MORRIS - doubt whether this can reasonably be classed as taking something [refer to dictionary definition of appropriation

Question 2

Consent Critique (Appropriation)

Answer 2

Consent been difficult to manage. See Giles and Uglow.

Gomez and Lawrence. Spencer -> It creates legal fiction — treating consensual transactions as theft -> Calls this an artificial expansion of theft.

Lack of clear definition and consistent application has created mass uncertainty… leading to ‘avoidable confusion’

Leigh. Analyse the blurred line between immoral conduct and unlawful/illegal conduct.

Question 3

Immoral vs Illegal Conduct (Appropriation critique)

Answer 3

If consent doesn’t matter, even morally wrong but consensual acts (e.g. persuading someone foolishly to give you money) might become criminal.

This blurs the boundary between:
Immorality (e.g., deception, manipulation), and
Illegality (e.g., theft).

Question 4

Dishonest - Ghosh Test

Answer 4

Explain how it’s the central mens rea component of certain property offences, e.g., Theft.

Comment on unhelpful statutory definition (s.2) – only negatively defines dishonesty. Left for courts to develop.

Address old law + Refer to Ghosh test + Critique

Question 5

Dishonesty - Ivey Test

Answer 5

New test: Ivey v Genting (affirmed in Barton).

Identify components. Analyse Ivey (facts and judgment, to demonstrate broader scope).

Now a single, objective test. Refer to Leggett for how courts have long struggled with role of subjectivity in dishonesty.

Explain benefits of objectivity (D’s no longer escaping liability by relying on lack of subjective understanding)and how they outweigh the drawbacks (consider honest, subjective mistakes – refer to Baker.

For drawbacks, also consider how it opens the door to more convictions “on the margins of criminality.”).

Another key drawback to analyse = assumption that juries all hold same interpretation of dishonesty. See Thomas and Pegg.