Theft

Cards (107)

  • Theft - s.1 Theft Act 1968
    A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
  • Property (s.4(1) TA 1968)
    Includes money and all other real, or personal, including things in action and other intangible property
  • Property
    • Drugs that the victim unlawfully possesses - Smith
  • Money
    Refers to coins and banknotes (physical), a cheque is not considered money - Davis
  • Things in action (Property)
    • Intangible property: cannot be physically handled or possessed but can be legally enforced
    • Examples: Bank account
  • Goddard LCJ in Davenport: 'The only person who has money in the bank is the banker'
  • Chan Man-Sin v AG for Hong Kong: 'The right to sue the bank for amount deposited, including an agreed overdraft = debt'
  • Things in action
    • Cheques
    • Blank cheque not intended to be presented - Roach
  • If D obtained cheque and intends to cash it out
    It is not theft - Clark
  • Property
    • Gas - White
    • Water - Ferens v O'brien
  • Electricity
    Does not amount to property so it cannot be stolen - Low v Blease
  • Confidential information, though it has value and can be sold, is not property
  • Confidential information
    • D not guilty of theft when he unlawfully acquired exam paper and returned it after he read the content - Oxford v Moss
  • Real property - Land

    • Cannot be stolen unless it falls within one of the exceptions of s.4(2)
  • s.4(2)(b): Those who are not in possession of land
    Where D is a trespasser it is theft to take things which form part of the land - rose bush/roof tiles
  • s.4(2)(c): Tenants in possession

    Where tenants remove something forming a part of the land that will be an offence - D appropriated a garden shed or fireplace
  • Things growing wild
    • Can be stolen in limited situations
    • s.4(2): rules relating where D steals a whole plant they uproot
    • s.4(3): rules relating to flowers, fruits or plants - such property is capable of theft where D takes it for reward or for sale or any other commercial purposes
  • s.4(4): Wild Creatures
    • D can steal that which a gamekeeper has killed as it has been reduced into possession
    • Cresswell: held badgers lured to traps by food were not reduced by possession
  • Corpses
    • Buried corpses are not property and cannot be stolen - Foster v Dodd / Hayne's case
    • Before being buried - corpse not property but can become property if someone has a right of possession over the body - Doodeward v Spence: there was property in a still-born foetus of 2 headed child
  • Appropriate - s.3(1) : Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appriopriation and this includes, where he has come by the property without stealining it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it.
    short definition : Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
  • Assumption of just one right owner
    Mcpherson : court held that the assumption of owners right is the right where property can be used, consume, destroy, sell, give it away, lend, move or priced.
    • appropriation of property includes an offer to sell - Pitham
    Pitham : offering someone else’s property for sale was appropriation
  • Appropriation
    Where D has assumed any one right, D will be considered to have appropriated property
  • Assumption of a right

    Sufficient for appropriation, not necessary to assume all the rights
  • Morris : Switching the price labels on goods was considered to be appropriation - it was the assumption of an ownership right.
    Gomez : HL confirmed Morris, now sufficient that D assumed a right of the owner, not necesarily all the rights had not yet assumed
  • however, old law assumed that one right of assumption was insufficent
    Hircock - Court held that the act of selling the car 2 weeks later it was acquired constituted appropriation : considered the point at which no further rights to the car could be assumed by D
    Dip Kaur v Chief Constable for Hampshire : Held that appropriation occured when she took the shoes to the cashier.
  • Later Appropriation (Relevant Appropriation)
    • s.3(1) : possible to make a later appropriation by keeping the property or dealing with it as owner - Thompson v Nixon : Later assumption by keeping the rabbit food he found intending to hand it in
  • Later Appriopiration by failure to return it - Omission
    Broom v Crowther : held that leaving stolen item on shelf was not appropriation as he only kept it for a few days, therefore mossion suffices
    contrast case :
    Gresham : it was said that failing to bring a banking mistake subsequetly discovered to the attention of the bank might not equate ‘keeping’, as some postive act is required
    other examples where theft have a positive act and no physical possession of the property :
  • where D transfers money from V’s account
    Hilton : despite not physcially handling the property, the court deemd the instruction to transfer the funds was a positive act - thus, D found guilty of theft
    D had control over a bank account belonging to a charity and instruted the bank to transfer money from the account to his perosnal account
  • where D transfers money from V’s account
    contrast case :
    Briggs v R : held that there was not an appropriation as appropriation requires a physcial ac rather than a remote action triggering a tranfer
    by a deception, D indcued her elderly relatives to transfer the money from the proceeds of their house sales into her bank account.
  • where D transfers money from V’s account
    contrast case :
    Darroux : Held that in D submitting the montly forms for additionally pay, D had not assumed the rights of an owner regarding the bank account which she had no control. Therefore, no appropriation by D as the Housing asscociation running the car home made the instruction to the bank
  • How to distinguish Hilton & Briggs case?
    can be argued that the distinction in :
    Briggs - victims’ instruction to the bank meant that the conduct was not by D.
    whereas
    Hilton - it was D ho instructed the bank and caused the money transfer
  • Appropriation
    Where rights of owners with the owner's permission
  • Lawrence: 'Held that the absence of consent was not a necessary requirement of appropriation and that the element of appropriation may be satisfied whether the owner has consented to the property being taken'
  • Contrast cases
    • Eddy v Ninman: Shopper placed items in basket, but intention was to steal. Held no appropriation because shoppers authorised to put items in the basket.
    • Morris: Lord Roskill concluded that appropriation 'involved not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owners but an act by way adverse interference with or usurpation of those rights'
  • Current law - conflict of whether appropriation can occur despite consent
  • Gomez
    • D assistant manager persuaded V to accept stolen cheques from his accomplice. Assumption of rights can occur with V's consent.
  • It is possible to appropriate property even where that property is a valid gift
  • Mazo
    • Narrow interpretation of Gomez led the court to conclude that there will be no conviction of theft where D had received a valid gift
  • Mazo has been overruled by Hinks (current law)