Actus reus of theft

• what does section 3(1) of the theft act 1968 say?

  Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation and this includes where he has come by the property without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as its owner.
• which section of what legislation states that Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation and this includes where he has come by the property without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as its owner?

  Section 3 ( 1 ) of the theft act 1968
• Appropriation is the act of a taking
• what is the significance of the case of r v Vinall?

  It shows how in order for there to be appropriation, the thief must do something which assumes at least one of the owner's rights- selling, destroying, possessing, consuming, using, lending, or hiring the property.
• Which case shows how in order for there to be appropriation, the thief must do something which assumes at least one of the owner's rights- selling, destroying, possessing, consuming, using, lending, or hiring the property?

  r v Vinall
• which case shows an appropriation by assuming the right to sell?

  r v Pitham and Hehl
• What is the significance of the case of pitham and hehl?

  it shows an appropriation by assuming the right to sell
• The right to destroy property is also an owner's right. this means that:

  • if the D destroys property belonging to another person, they can be charged with theft of the property isn't destroyed but merely thrown away, there is an infringement of the owner's rights.
• what is the significance of the case of r v Morris?

  It shows that there does not need to be an assumption of all the rights of the owner for it to be a theft.
• which case shows that there does not need to be an assumption of all the rights of the owner for it to be a theft?

  R v Morris
• what is the significance of the case of r v lawrence?

  it was decided that appropriation can take place even with the consent of the victim.
• in which case was it decided that appropriation can take place even with the consent of the victim?

  r v Lawrence
• what is the significance of the case of r v hinks?

  It shows that a D can be convicted of theft, even though it appears to be a voluntary gift
• Which case shows that a D can be convicted of theft, even though it appears to be a voluntary gift?

  R v Hinks
• what does section 4 (1) of the theft act 1968 say?

  property includes money and all property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property
• which section of which legislation states that property includes money and all property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property?

  section 4 ( 1 ) of the theft act 1968
• what does section 4 (2) of the theft act 1968 say?

  a person cannot steal land unless he is a trustee of it or a personal representative, when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming a part of it, or when in possession through a tenancy, heappropriates a part of or a whole fixture
• which section of which legislation states that a person cannot steal land unless he is a trustee of it or a personal representative, when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming a part of it, or when in possession through a tenancy, he appropriates a part of or a whole fixture?

  Section 4 ( 2 ) of the theft act 1968
• what does sectiuon 4 (3) of the theft act 1968 say?

  it is not theft to pick wild mushrooms, plants etc unless it is for a commercial gain
• Which section of what legislation states that it is not theft to pick wild mushrooms, plants etc unless it is for a commercial gain?

  section 4 ( 3 ) of the theft act 1968
• What does section 4( 4 ) of the theft act 1968 say?

  Wild creatures are not classed as property either, and therefore cannot be stolen
• Which section of what legislation states that Wild creatures are not classed as property either and therefore cannot be stolen?

  section 4 ( 4 ) of the theft act 1968
• what case shows that a defendant cannot be charged with theft of information on paper?

  oxford v moss
• what is the significance of the case of oxford v moss?

  it shows that a defendant cannot be charged with theft of information on paper
• what is the significance of the case of r v kelly?

  It shows that a body part can become property if it had acquired different attributes by the application of skill, such as dissection or preservation techniques
• Which case shows that a body part can become property if it had acquired different attributes by the application of skill, such as dissection or preservation techniques ?

  r v Kelly
• what section of which legislation states property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having a proprietary interest in it. At the time of appropriation, the property in question must belong to another person?

  Section 5 ( 1 ) of the theft act 1968
• what does section 5 ( 1 ) of the theft act 1968 say?

  it states property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having a proprietary interest in it. At the time of appropriation, the property in question must belong to another person
• what is the significance of the case of r v webster?

  It is an example of where someone retained a proprietary interest in an item, and were entitled to ask for it's return at any point in time.
• which case is an example of where someone retained a proprietary interest in an item, and were entitled to ask for it's return at any point in time?

  r v Webster~
• what is the significance of the case of r v turner?

  in this case it was decided that a person can retain possession rights until a bill has been paid
• In which case was it decided that a person can retain possession rights until a bill has been paid?

  r v turner
• what does section 5 ( 3 ) of the theft act 1968 say?

  It says that it can be classed as theft where property has been given to the Dand the person giving the property specifies how it should be dealt with, but the D fails to do this
• what section of which legislation says that it can be classed as theft where property has been given to the D and the person giving the property specifies how it should be dealt with, but the D fails to do this?

  Section 5 ( 3 ) of the theft act 1968
• What is the significance of the case of r v davidge and bunnett?

  in this case it was shown that it can be classed as theft where property has been given to the D and the person giving the property specifies how it should be dealt with, but the D fails to do this.
• which case was it shown that it can be classed as theft where property has been given to the D and the person giving the property specifies how it should be dealt with, but the D fails to do this?

  r v Davidge and Bunnett
• what does section 5 ( 4 ) of the theft act 1968 say?

  there is a legal obligation to restore property received by mistake
• which section of what legislation states that there is a legal obligation to restore property received by mistake?

  section 5 ( 4 ) of the theft act 1968
• what is the significance of the case of r v gomez?

  It shows that nay removal of goods from a shelf in a shop is an appropriation
• which case shows that nay removal of goods from a shelf in a shop is an appropriation?

  r v Gomez