theft mr

• what is the first element of the mens rea of theft?

  dishonesty
• what section is dishonesty confirmed in?

  2
• whats the definition of dishonesty?


  there is not one provided
• what was confirmed in r v feeley?

  dishonesty is a decision for the jury
• what three situations did the statute give that do not satisfy dishonesty?

  s2(1)(a) the defendant believes he has the right to deprive the other of it; s2(1)(b) the defendant believes the owner would consent; s2(1)(c) the defendant believes the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
• what test is applied if the statutory exceptions to dishonesty don’t apply?


  the ivey test
• what is the ivey test?

  a jury should consider whether a defendant’s conduct was honest or dishonest by applying the standards of ordinary decent people
• what was stated in s2(2)?

  a person’s appropriation may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property
• what was stated in s1(2)?

  it is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or is made for the thief’s own benefit
• what is the second element of the mens rea of theft?

  intention to permanently deprive
• what section is intention to permanently deprive defined in?


  6
• what is the definition of intention to permanently deprive?


  a person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal
• what was confirmed in lavender?

  it need be proved that the defendant had intention to deal with the property as his own
• what was confirmed in raphael and another?

  taking property and offering to sell it back to the owner suffices
• what was confirmed in velumyl?


  if a person takes money and intends to replace it with the same amount it is still theft
• what was confirmed in dpp v j and others?

  returning property in a damaged state may be evidence
• what was confirmed in lloyd?

  ’borrowing and lending’ means borrowing the property and keeping it until ‘the goodness, the virtue, the practical value’ had gone from it
• what was confirmed in easom?

  conditional intent will not suffice