Theft case flashcards

Corocan v Anderton

Ds knocked a woman to the ground and attempted to steal her handbag by grabbing at it but she held on and they ran away. This was ruled to be sufficient for appropriation.

R v Vinall

Two teenager were cycling when D punched one and stole his bike and then abandoned it 46 meters down the road. It was ruled both the taking and abandoning of the bike were examples of appropriation. It was also established that appropriation is viewed as occurring at one specific time.

R v Pitham and Hehl

While D’s ‘friend’ was in prison D sold all the furniture in the house. D argued as he never took the items outside of the house he was not liable, but selling furniture is something only the owner has the right to do so he was appropriating the items

R v Morris

D switched the labels on two packets of pork. This was judged to be appropriation as setting the price of the items is for the owner of the goods to decide.

Lawrence v CMP

V was an Italian student who spoke little English and had arrived in London that day. When he got into a taxi the driver was given £1 but proceeded to take another £6 which V allowed him to do. The real fare was 50p and D was liable despite the consent from V.

R v Gomez

D was a shop assistant who convinced his manager to accept cheques he knew to be worthless. The consent about the cheques was not genuine because of deception about the value of the cheques. The appropriation had occurred when D took those items off the shelves.

R v Hinks

D was friendly with V. V was of low intelligence but did understand the concept of giving gifts. Over one year V withdrew all of his savings and inheritance and gave it to D. This was judged to be an appropriation as D was assuming the rights of the owner by getting V to give her all of his money and he was not mentally capable of making reasoned decisions on whether to give these gifts.

R v Stalham

D was given a raise but was accidentally given it in a lump sum. He was obliged by contract to return the money but he allowed his brother to withdraw the money. Therefore, although he had received the money innocently, he had assumed the rights of the owner once it was withdrawn and spent.

R v Atakpu and Abrahams

Ds hired BMWs in Germany using false licences and attempted to drive them back to the UK but were arrested at Dover customs. The CoA ruled that appropriation is not a continuing and that the appropriation occurred outside of the UK so they could not be tried under our jurisdiction.

Oxford v Moss

D looked at exam papers and then put them back. It was judged confidential information is not property so D was not criminally liable.

R v Kelly and Lindsay

Ds stole body parts from the Royal College of Surgery. It was ruled that body parts aren’t property unless they have a use or purpose which they did in this case as they were being used for surgical practice.

R v Welsh

D had given the police a urine sample as he had been caught drink driving, but he took it and poured it down the sink. Even though it was his piss the police had a proprietary interest so he was committing an offence by destroying it.

R v Woodman

D stole scrap metal from a disused factory he was working in that the company in charge wasn’t aware they owned. This was still their property and D was still liable for the theft of it.

R v Turner

D left his car with a garage to make repairs. This meant the garage had control of the car. D then returned with his spare keys and drove off without paying for the repairs. As the garage had control and possession he was committing theft by not paying to relinquish their control.

R v Small

D took a car that had been left with the doors open and key in the ignition for a decent period of time. He was not liable as he believed the owner no longer had any proprietary interest in the vehicle

Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates Court

D picked up two bags that had been dropped off by a charity shop for collection. It was ruled that until the charity shop took the items inside the property still belonged to the people that put it there. It had not been abandoned so D was liable.

Williams v Phillips

Taking rubbish was ruled to be stealing someone’s rubbish. The dustmen would collect items from the rubbish to sell. It was ruled that the items were property of the council once they had been collected and it was theft to sell any of those items

R v Rostron and Collinson

Just because the owner cannot access the property doesn’t mean it is abandoned. Ds collected golf balls from the bottom of the lake at the course but it was judged the balls still belonged to the golf club even if they couldn’t currently access them.

R v Webster

D was a sergeant that was sent two medals by mistake. He sold the spare one but was charged with theft as the MoD still had a proprietary interest in that medal - it still belonged to them.

R v Hall

D was a travel agent who received money for deposits for flights. He paid this money into the firm’s account but did not organise the tickets and could not return the money. He was not liable as there was no obligation to deal with the deposits in a certain way. It was stressed the subjectivity of section 5.

Davidge v Burnett

D was given money by her flatmates to pay the gas bill instead using it to buy Christmas presents - as there was an obligation to deal with the money in a particular way that she hadn’t done section 5 was fulfilled.

R v Gilks

D was accidentally paid out for a bet by a booky which D knew was a mistake. However, as there was no legal obligation to return the money she had no committed theft by keeping it.

R v Shadrock-Cigar

A bank mistakenly added £250,000 instead of £250 to their child’s account. The parents withdrew the money but as there was a legal obligation to return it a crime had been committed.

R v Barton and Booth (Ivey v Genting Casinos)

The courts will first establish what the defendant believed in the situation. Based on what they believed in the situation the test for dishonesty is decided objectively by a jury - would reasonable, honest people consider D’s actions to be dishonest.

R v Small

Case for owner cannot be found aspect of dishonesty. D found a broken down car with no petrol and took it believing it had been abandoned and he had a legal right to take it. As there is no requirement the belief be reasonable, it did not matter he could have found the owner using the number plate. D was not guilty of theft.

R v Bernhard

D had agreed to pay his mistress to keep their relationship a secret. When he failed to pay she threatened to publish the relationship in a local paper if he didn’t pay. D was not liable as she genuinely believed she was entitled to the money.

R v Holden

D worked in a repair shop and had seen others taking tyres so he thought it was allowed and he took some home himself. This was against company policy and illegal but as he believed it reasonably or not he wasn’t liable.

DPP v Lavender

D took some doors that were being added to the council flat and added them to his girlfriends flat that was in the same council building. Although the council still had possession of the doors he had chosen to ‘dispose of’ them without permission which is a crime.

R v Mitchell

V was robbed of her car. 2 hours later it was found abandoned a few miles away. The courts did not feel this was a disposal as they felt the property had been left with the intention that it would eventually find it’s way back to the rightful owner.

R v Velumyl

D took a grand from his company safe. He said the money was lent to a friend and he would replace the exact value after he was repaid. This was found to be irrelevant as he had intent to permanently deprive the company of those exact banknotes even if he intended to replace them with different notes later.

R v Lloyd

D took a roll of film from his work at a cinema. Made a copy and returned it before the next screening. The Lloyd test was created ‘the goodness, the virtue, the practical value’ of the property is lost for section 6 to be satisfied for a borrowing case. In this case it was not lost so D was not liable.

R v Beecham 1851

A railway station clerk took three tickets to York which he intended to return to the train company after the journey. However, even though the train company would get the tickets back they would have lost all practical value so section 6 would be satisfied.

R v Easom

D went through a bag looking for things to steal but found nothing and returned the bag and it’s contents back where he got it from. The courts ruled that conditional intent here meant there was no intention to permanently deprive so D couldn’t be liable.