Theft P2 - Cases

R v Vinall

D verbally abused and took bicycles of two men but abandoned them 45 metres away
appropriation was taking the bicycle and then abandoning it

R v Pitham and Hehl

D tried to sell furniture belonging to another in that person’s house.
Appropriation took place, not relevant if victim was deprived of property or not

R v Morris

D switched price labels on two items in supermarket and checked out item which had lower price now.
Appropriation can apply to any right

Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police

foreigner arived at station where taxi driver took him for journey that should’ve cost only 50p, instead he told him it would be expensive, so he offered 1 pound. when D said more, victim offered wallet to take however much needed and he took 6 pounds.
Appropriation with consent

R v Gomez (1993)

D was shop assistant. he convinced manager to take stolen cheques which had no value.
Appropriation doesn’t depend on opposing owner’s wishes however outcome will obviously not be what owner desired.

R v Hinks (2000)

D befriended a man with learning difficulties and convinced him to give her money. The case clarified that appropriation can occur with consent, even if the individual lacks the capacity to fully understand the transaction, emphasizing the nuances of consent in theft.

R v Gimbert

D stole victim’s house through power of attorney. Although it proved to be invalid therefore couldn’t be basis of theft and fell under fraud.

R v Kelly and Lindsay

Kelly was a sculptor who asked lindsay to get body parts from Royal College of Surgeons where she worked. convicted.
Body parts are considered property

Oxford v Mass (1979)

D looked at upcoming exam papers but put them back. He was not guilty since information isn’t property.

R v Turner

owner left car for repair in garage and would pay when repairs were completed. took car back early from spare key.
owner can steal own property if in possession or control of other at that time

R v Woodman

company arranged another company to remove scraps on site. Small amounts of scrap remained which D stole. D was guilty even though victim wasnt aware of the scraps.
owner doesnt have to be aware of possession

R v Basildon Magistrates Court

1) D stole bags from outside charity. guilty since they were intended to be delivered to charity.
2) D stole bags from rear bin of charity. Charity was in possession of bags so guilty
Goods belong to original owner until taken possession of by new owner.

R v Webster

Army sergeant received an extra medal for serving which he sold. He was guilty since Ministry of defence had equitable interest in it.
D can be guilty of stealing item he possesses and controls if there is proprietary interest of other in it.

R v Hall

D was travel agent who booked air trips to america for clients. he paid deposits in general account but didnt get tickets. not guilty
no obligation to deal with deposits in particular way

Davidge v Bunnett

D was given money to pay electricity bill by flatmates which she spent on Christmas presents. guilty
legal obligation to use money in particular way

Attorney General’s Reference

Police women got over-payment of wages, she acknowledged it but didnt withdraw nor return it. She was guilty
Legal obligation to return property handed over by mistake

R v Small

D found car with missing parts and no petrol which he assumed to be abandoned and took it. Not guilty since genuine belief he had legal right to take it (doesnt have to be reasonable)

R v Holden

D took scrap tyres from company where he worked. He claimed other people had done the same with supervisor’s permission. not guilty
belief he had legal right to property

R v Barton and Booth (2000)

Barton was owner of luxury nursing home and booth was general manager. Barton used his position to steal and defraud vulnerable, rich clients. Barton was accused of assisting him. COA applied test for dishonesty.
Confirmed criminal use for test of dishonesty.

R v Ghosh (1982)

created 2 stage ghosh test, old test for dishonesty.

Irey v Genting Casinos (2017)

overruled ghosh test, created new test for dishonesty

R v Velumyl

D took cash notes from office safe but intended to replace when earn more. convicted since it wont be same notes
intention to permanently deprive

DPP v Lavender

D took door from council property and replaced doors in gf’s council flat. He transferred doors without permission
Dealt with property as his own - intent to permanently deprive

R v Lloyd (1985)

D made illegal copy of film at cinema, but returned the film before next screening in original state. Not guilty as it hadn’t lost any goodness, any virtue or physical value
intention to permanently deprive couldnt be proved as it hadnt lost any value

R v Eason

D took handbag at cinema, rummaged through its contents, then returned it as is. Not guilty
conditional intent is not enough to prove guilty of theft

theft definition

s1 Theft Act 1968 ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it’

DPP v Lavender

D took door from council property to replace damaged doors in his girlfriend’s council flat. D had transferred doors from one council property to another without permission.
dealing with as his own