theft

• what is the significance of section one of the theft act 1968?

  It defines theft as:

  Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
• What legislation oversees what theft is?

  The theft act 1968
• what is the actus reus of theft?

  The appropriation of property belonging to another
• What is element one of the actus reus of theft?

  Where the D appropriates the rights of the owner
• What is the significance of section 3 of the theft act 1968?

  It defined the first element of the actus reus of theft:

  as any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner.
• What is the significance of the case of r v morris?

  It is an example of the first element of the actus reus of theft- where the D switched labels on goods which allowed him to pay a lower price
• What is the significance of the case of r v lawrence?

  Theft can be take place even with the consent of the victim
• What is the significance of the case of r v hinks?

  It can still be theft if the appropriated property appeared to be a gift.
• what section of the theft act 1968 deals with property?

  Section 4
• What does section 4(1) of the theft act 1968 say?

  All property includes money, and property that is real or personal which also includes things in action and other intangible property
• 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 he appropriates a part of or a whole fixture.
• What does section 4(3) of the theft act 1968 say?

  It isnt theft to pick wild plants unless it is for commerical gain
• what does sectin 4(4) of the theft act say?

  As wild creatures are not classed as property, they cannot be stolen
• What is the significance of the case of oxford v moss?

  It shows that someone can be convicted of the theft of information on paper
• what is the signnificance of the case of r v Marshall?

  It shows that appropriation can still take place in instances where the property is taken and used without the Owner's consent, regardless of whether the property has been discarded by someone who temporarily possessed it.
• what is the significance of the case of r v Kelly?

  it shows how human body parts can be considered property if they have undergone a process which imparts new attributes and value.
• what is element two of theft, and what section of the theft act 1968 talks about it?

  The second element of the theft act discusses that property must have been appropriated- section four of the theft act 1968 talks about it.
• what is the third element of theft, and what section of the theft act 1968 talks about it?


  The third element is that the property appropriated must have belonged to another- Section 5 of the theft act 1968 talks about this.
• What does section 5(1) of the theft act 1968 say?

  It states that 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. Ownership of property can be distinguished from possession of it.
• what is the significance of the case of r v webster?

  It states that Even if a defendant possesses an item, if another party retains a proprietary interest, the item can still be considered as "belonging to another," thereby making its appropriation theft.
• what is the significance of the case of r v turner?

  it was decided that a person can retain possession rights until a bill has been paid
• What does section 5(3) of the theft act 1968 say?

  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
• What is the significance of the case of r v Davidge and Bunnett?

  It is an example of where property had been given to the defendant(s) with specific instructions that were not followed
• What does section 5(4) of the theft act 1968 say?

  It states that there is a legal obligation to restore property received by mistake.
• What is the significance of the Attorney General's first reference between 1983 and 1985?


  It is an example of where money that was recieved by mistake not being restored.
• what is the men's rea of theft?

  Where the D has a dishonest intention to permanently deprive the other of the appropriated property.
• What does section 6(1) of the theft act 1968 say?

  It defines permanently depriving a victim of their property as situations where the D has intention to treat the thing as his own and dispose of it regardless of the other person’s rights or borrowing it for such along time that it is the same as outright taking it.
• What is the signififcance of the case of DPP v J and others?

  It shows that breaking property is the same as having intention to permanently deprive the victim of their property.
• What are the three situations where the D has not acted dishonestly?

  If the D thinks they had to right to deprive the other of the property

  If the D honestly believed the other person would have consented to the D taking the property

  If the D honestly believed that the owener of the property couldnt be found by taking reasonable steps.
• WHat is the test put forwards by the case of r v Ghosh?

  Would the D’s behaviour be regarded as dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people?

  If the answer is NO the D is not guilty of theft as he has not been dishonest.

  If the answer is YES then he has been dishonest.
• WHat is the significance of the case of r v Ghosh?

  It put forwards a test for dishonesty in place of a statutory test.
• what is the signinificance of section 3 of the theft act 1968?

  It defines the first element of the actus reus of theft
• What is the first element of the actus reus of theft?

  It is any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner
• what is the significance of the fourth element of the theft act 1968?

  It gives the second element of the actus reus of theft
• What is the second element of the actus reus of theft?

  Property must have been appropriated
• What is the significance of section 5 of t he theft act 1989?

  It gives the third element of the actus reus of theft
• What is the third element of the actus reus of theft?

  The property that has been appropriated must belong to another