THEFT

    Cards (10)

    • Appropriation
      Been argued that the word ‘appropriates’ is defined too widely, in R v Lawrence it was held that appropriation can happen with the consent of the owner and in R v Hines where even a gift can be an appropriation. It is stated that these cases have actually extended the meaning of ‘apprortaiton’ past intention of Parliament and therefore arguably places too much emphasis on the mens Rea, particularly ‘dishonesty’. But cases like Lawrence and Hinks can be justified on the grounds they were both protecting vulnerable victims.
    • S3(1) also states there can be appropriation when D acquires property without stealing it and then later decides to’’keep’’ or ‘’deal’’ with the property as owner, this is helpful in everyday situations where the defendants borrowing property, but develops dishonest intentions later, which also still makes them guilty even though they sought dishonest intention after they appropriated the property.
    • Property
      S4(1) includes money, personal property, land and buildings and things in action, In R v Kelly, it was held that human body parts cannot ‘be’ property, unless they have been preserved, decision seems bizarre and that some wouldn’t even class corpses as property. In Oxford v Moss, the defendant was liable for stealing an exam paper, but not the information written on it which seemed strange as it depicts that  D was liable for stealing just piece of paper.
    • It is strange as to other sections such as s4(2) land, s4(3) wild foliage, flowers and mushrooms and s4(4) wild untamed animals – these depict what ISN’T classed as property, not what is which seems much more important to establish and it will be easier to make a successful case as people may doubt if they are actually a victim of theft and whether they will succeed in a case against the defendant.
    • Belonging to another
      Given wide definition by Theft Act 1968 and includes possession or control, as well as a propriety interest. In Turner, it was held that D could steal his own property as he took his car from the garage but at the time, the garage was in possession of the car, not D so therefore he was liable for theft.
    • As it seems quite peculiar, the broad meaning of belonging to another is useful for the prosecution because they do not have out prove who the legal owner is, just whether who had control or possession at the time of the offence. It also does protect business from customers taking property without paying.
    • Woodman – decision was fair because a crime is still a crime, even if the victim was unaware it had occurred – The defendant was convicted of theft when he took scrap metal from a disused factory. The factory’s occupier had taken steps to keep people off the land, but was unaware of its contents. The defendant appealed. He argued that the scrap metal did not ‘belong to another’ and so could not be the subject of theft. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal.
    • By taking steps to keep trespassers out, the occupier was in control of the land and everything on it. It did not matter that they were not specifically aware of the scrap metal.
    • Sections on under an obligation s5(3) and by mistake s5(4) are also quite combated, but are necessary to cover everyday situations such as being overpaid – A-Gs Ref (No.1 of 1983)(1985)- The defendant was a policewoman who was mistakenly paid an extra £74 in her wages by direct debit into her bank account.
    • The employer made no demand for repayment. The defendant initially did not know about the overpayment but there was some evidence that she later discovered the error and decided to say nothing about it. However, she didn’t remove the money from her bank account.the court held that if there was not an honest attempt to make restoration (i.e. she took a conscious decision not to repay the overpaid salary) then there could be a theft. However the jury acquitted. but there is a practical problem in proving that the D noticed this.
    See similar decks