AR of Theft

• Morris outlined that the assumption of 'any rights of the owner of the goods' amounts to theft
• Gomez outlined that there can be appropriation even with the owners consent. Consent obtained by 'false representation'.
• Hink outlined that the acceptance of a gift can be appropriation if it was obtained through D being deceptive.
• Oxford V Moss outlined that information is not property
• Kelly and Lindsay outlined that body parts are stolen if the body parts have a purpose
• S.4(3) outlined that wild plants, berries etc are exempt from theft unless it is used to be sold
• s.4(4) outlined that wild tamed or untamed animals cannot be stolen unless it is to be sold
• Webster -Owner had proprietary right over property
• Turner - 'thief' has proprietary right but not possession and control
• Turner - stealing back car from the garage
• Webster - 2nd medal sent to him by MoD
• Kelly and Lindsay - Body parts stolen
• Oxford v Moss - Information on exam paper
• Hinks - Mother taking advantage of naive man
• Gomez - bouncing cheques in electrical store
• Morris - label switching
• What did s.5 outline?


  Belonging to another - 'any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary interest'
• What did s.4(1) outline?


  ''property'' includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action or other intangible property
• What did s.3 outline?


  Appropriation - The assumption of the rights of the owner at the time or later (Morris, Gomez, Hicks)
• What does s.5(3) specify?

  If property is received under an obligation (Davidge v Bunnett and Hall)- under obligation to retain and deal with the property in a particular way.
• What does s.5(4) specify?

  If received by acciedent - under obligation to make restoration - AG's reference no.1 obligation to restore, Gilks states: no obligation if it is a betting transaction
• Abandonment and rubbish: find the P+C and the PR of the item