Theft :)))

• Introduction


  -theft act 1968 (TA)

  -TA defines defence as " a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other off if"

  -triable either way offence

  -maximum sentance 7 years
• Appropriation


  -s.3

  -assume rights of owner

  -demonstrated in R v vinall and pitman v Hehl

  -enough to show assumption of any rights R v morris

  -appropriation is " 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 (innocently or not) without stealing it any later assumptions of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner"
• Consent to appropriation


  -cases where defendant got consent to take but still found guilty

  -Lawrence v commissioner for metropolitan and R v Gomez

  -depends on factors e.g dishonestly
• Consent to appropriation without deception

  -did decision in Gomez also apply if given consent without any deception

  -raised in R v hinks

  -depends on if ordinary member public see act as dishonest
• Appropriation s.3 when does the appropriation take place

  -Gomez-appropriation viewed as occurring at one specific point in time

  -case of vinall the later appropriation of abandon bike is more relevant as this shows intention to deprive

  -further illustrated in R c atakpu and Abraham's

  -shows appropriation occurs the first time a person assumes the right of the owner
• Appropriation s.3 was there a later assumption of rights


  -assumption can take place when a defendant acquires goods innocently and later assumes right of owner

  -keeping or dealing
• S.4 property


  -was it property?

  -what things can't be property
• S.4 was it property?

  -theft there must be an appropriation of property

  -s.4(1) definition " property includes money and all the ther property,real or personal,including things in action and other tangible property
• S.4 money


  -coins and notes not bank account
• S.4 personal property


  -anything moveable and tangible

  -R v smith (Micheal) and others - prohibited drugs

  -R v Herbert- hair

  -R v rothery-blood

  -R v Welsh - urine

  -body parts included but not corpse as in R v Kelly and Lindsay
• S4(2) real property


  -land and buildings

  -s4(2) only stolen in 3 circumstances

  -1.the defendant is a trustee representative or has power of attorney and deal with the property or takes the property in breach of trust.

  -2.where D is not in possession of the property but appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing or causing it to be severed.(dig up land or dismantle wall and take bricks)

  -3. Where the defendant is a tenant and appropriates the whole or part of any fixture/structure
• S.4(1) things in actions

  -right which can be legally enforced against another person by an act of law

  -it's the right itself which is the property under the definition of TA

  -bank account is an example
• S.4 intangible property


  -no physical existence

  -for example a parent

  -Oxford v moss-confidential information such as questions on exam paper aren't intangible property

  -information on paper and knowledge in the mind could not amount to intangible
• Plant and flowers s.4(3)

  "A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land or who picks followers,fruits of foliage from a plant growing wild on any land does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purposes
• Wild animal s.4(4)


  "Wild creatures tamed or untamed shall be regarded as property but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity or the carcass of any such creature unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned or another person is in the course of reducing it into possession."
• Electricity s.4


  -can't be stollen

  -separate offence under s.11 of the TA using electricity without due authority or dishonestly causing it to be wasted or diverted
• S.5 belonging to another definition

  "property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having in it any right of interest"
• Possession or control


  -owner always have possession or control

  -if hire care both possession and control

  -even led to original power being guilty-R v turner

  -can be in possession and control even if don't know it's there R v woodman

  -when goods are left for someone the goods belonging to the original owner until the new owner takes possession of them-R v basildon magistrates court
• Propriety Interest s.5


  -guilty of stealing if other has propriety intrest

  -shown in R v Webster -sent extra meddle-sold if
• Propriety interest exemption s.5 obligation

  -request dealt with in certain way

  -S5(3)"when a person receives property from or on account of another and is under an obligation to the property or it's proceeds in a particular way the property shall be regarded(as against him) as belonging to the other

  -prosecution prove obligation

  -R v hall pay deposit think go into bank account use to pay bills not theft even if don't receive product
• Property received by mistake

  s.5(4): when property is received by mistake there is a legal obligation to return it to the owner

  - A-Gs Ref (1 of 1983): D was overpaid by her employers and didn't repay the money, she needed to repay it.

  -some situations no obligation R v gilks
• Dishonesty s.2


  -when appropriates proof dishonesty

  -subsection 1(2)"immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or is made for the thief's own benefit "
• Dishonesty s.2 behaviour not dishonest

  -he has in law the right to deprive the other of it on behalf of himself or a third person -belief by D-subjective test R v small

  -he would have the other person consent if they knew the appropriation and circumstances of it

  -person Who owns the property cannot be discovered after taking reasonable steps

  -based on defendant belief
• Dishonesty willing to pay s.2


  -once caught may say willing to pay or may leave money to pay

  -still dishonest s.2(2) states " a persons appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest not with standing that he is willing to pay for the property
• Dishonesty was he dishonest at the time of appropriation

  -two stage test for 40 years developed in R v ghosh

  -part 2 doubted following unanimous decision in Ivery v genting casinos Ltd t/a crockford
• Two steps for dishonesty from R v Barton and booth

  -1.what was the defendants actual knowledge of belief as to the facts must be established

  -2.whether or not the D conduct was dishonest by the standard of ordinary decent people
• S.6 Intention to permanently deprive

  -even if intended to replace money as shown in R v velumyl
• S.6 borrowing and lending

  -borrowing is generally not theft unless for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent outright taking R v Lloyd

  -if property data usage it can be argued that there would be an intention to permanently deprive if all data allowance had been used up
• S.6 Intention to permanently deprive and throw things away


  -if the defendant treats the propert as his own to dispose of regardless of the others right then the defendant has the intention to permanently deprive as shown in

  -Raphael and another

  -when D districts or disposes it is intention to permanently deprive

  -dispose off "to deal with definitely go get done with finish to make over by way of sale or bargain or sell.

  -Dpp v lavender-appropriation dosent mean intention to deprive

  -how disposed off - chief constable of Avon and Somerset constabulary v smith