theft flashcards - criminal law

S.1 theft act 1968

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

AR, MR

All elements of theft must be present at a point in time.

S3 - appropriation

Any assumption of the rights of the owner is an appropriation, including where a person has come across property innocently but then later assumes rights by keeping it or dealing with it. An appropriation is a taking.

Appropriation

Appropriation occurs at a point in time. An appropriation can also occur where the defendant acquires property without stealing it but later decides to keep it or dealing with it as an owner.

Property

For there to be a theft, the defendant must have appropriated property. Property is defined widely in s4 (1) of the theft act 1968.

• money

• Personal property

• Real property

• Thing in action

• Other intangible property

• Other property?

Things that cannot be stolen - s4

Under s4(3) and (4) of the theft act 1968 certain things cannot be stolen.

• this includes plants, flowers, fruits or fungus growing wick don any land. - not stealing unless it is done for reward or sale.

• Plants growing wild v cultivated plants

• (The wildlife and countryside act 1981 makes it an offence to pick, uproot, or destroy certain plants)

• Wild animals?

S5 - Belonging to another

• ‘property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having it in any proprietary right or interest (not including equitable interests arising from an agreement).

• So, possession, control of property or having a proprietary interest is sufficient for ‘belonging to another’. This is useful where the identity of the original owner is not known.

S5 continued

S5 makes it possible for a theft even where the property does not belong to another. This happens where the defendant has acted dishonestly and made wa loss or a gain -

• a trustee can steal property .

• Property received under obligation can be stolen.

• Property received by mistake can be stolen.

Mens rea

The first part of the mens rea for theft is that the defendant Must have appropriated property dishonestly.

The theft act 1968 does not define dishonesty but instead gives three situations where the behaviour is not considered dishonest.

S1(2) states that ‘it is immoral whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or it is made for the thief’s own benefit .

S2 on dishonesty

S2 gives the 3 situations where the behaviour is not regarded as dishonest.

• right to deprive s2(1)(a)

• Consent without knowledge s2(1) (b)

• Cannot discover ‘owner’ s2 (1) c

• Does the belief have to be correct or reasonable?

• The belief has to be genuine.

S2(1) (a) right to deprive

The defendant’s belief may well be reasonable but it should ne an honestly held belief. Whether the belief is honestly held is a question for the jury.

Holden 1991 - not dishonest if he believed he had a legal right to do as he had done.

S2 (1) (b) consent with knowledge

Question is whether the defendant genuinely believed that consent would have been given.;

S2(1) c - belief that the ‘owned cannot be discovered’

The question for the jury is whether the defendant‘s belief that the owner can’t be discovered after taking reasonable (as to him) steps is an honest belief.

R v Small 1987.

Was the defendant‘s belief reasonable?

Establishing dishonesty

• a task for the jury

• Common sense

• Recent change in the law

• Vital - AR for theft is wide

S6 intention to permanently deprive

• this is the second part of the mens rea

• Often the intention to permanently deprive is clear from the facts of the case, for example where the defendant Rakes something and then sells it.

• It’s important to note that it is unnecessary for there to be a permanent deprivation in fact.

• The intention to deprive must be present at the time of the appropriation.

Establishing an intention to permanently deprive

S6 (1) provides for the situation where the defendant Appropriating properly belonging to another doesn’t intend the owner to permanently lose the thing itself but he can be regarded as having the intent to permanently deprive if he treats the thing as his own to dispose of, regardless of the owner’s rights.

‘Dispose of’ is given a wide meaning - evidence - can you infer an intention to deprive?

Borrowing or lending

S6 also states that the borrowing or lending of a thing is not theft unless its for a period and ion circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

Conditional intent

This is where a defendant searches property with an intention of taking something if it is worth taking.

R v Easom - not guilty of theft.

Establishing the intention to deprive

This is not always easy to establish and often it will rest on how the defendant treated the property subsequent to them acquiring it.

Whether the intention to permanently deprive is present at the time of the taking or at the time of the disposal will be sufficient for this part of the theft.

What was the evidence in Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Smith 1984 that could establish an intention to permanently deprive?