theft & robbery & burglary

Pitham v hehl

Assumption of the right to sell is appropriation

Morris

Assumption of any rights is enough for appropriation

Lawrence v MPC

Consensual appropriation will depend upon the circumstances

DPP v Gomez

Appropriation can occur even with the consent of the owner

Hinks

Appropriation can occur where consent is obtained without deception

Atakpu & abrahams

Appropriation takes place at one point in time

Kelly & Lindsay

Dead bodies and body parts can constitute personal property

Oxford v moss

Not all intangible property is considered property under the law of theft

Turner [no.2]

An owner can steal his own property

Woodman

Someone can unknowingly be in possession or control of property

R (ricketts) v Basildon magistrates court

Someone (charity shop) can be unknowingly in possession or control of property

Webster

D can be guilty of stealing even if he owns property and is in possession or control of it

Hall

Unfulfilled obligations must be specific to amount to theft

Klineberg & marsden

Specific unfulfilled obligations can amount to theft

Davidge v bunnett

Specific unfulfilled obligations can amount to theft even where

AG reference [no 1 1983]

Good received mistakenly and where d chooses to keep them even though there is a legal obligation to return the is theft

Gilks

Goods received mistakenly and where d chooses to keep them but there is no legal obligation to return is not theft

Holden

An unreasonable belief, however unreasonable, can prevent d from having acted dishonesty (tyres)

Small

An unreasonable belief, however unreasonable, can prevent d from having acted dishonestly

Ivey v genting casinos

Civil case- obiter

Did away with the second section of the gosh test (no longer matters what d thought about how others would regard his actions)

Barton & booth

Approved the decision in Ivey to remove the second limb of the gosh test. Test is now, was ds conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people

Velumyl

Permanently depriving intentionally can exist even where d intends to replace the property with a substitute later

DPP v lavender

Dictionary definition of ‘dispose of’ is too narrow

Lloyd 1985

Returning an item in its original state means intent to permanently deprive can’t be proven

Eason

No evidence of intention to permanently deprive means no theft

Zerei

Taking a car and then leaving it abandoned may suggest that d doesn’t intend to permanently deprive

B&R v DPP

Robbery- v doesn’t need to fear force, it must merely be the intention of d

Corcoran v Anderton

Robbery- if force is used to steal, the second that a theft is complete so too is a robbery

P v DPP

Robbery- the use of force on a person is a subjective question for the jury

Clouden

Robbery- force applied to an item held by the victim can be considered force on a person

Dawson & James

Robbery- force applied on a person can be minimal

Hale

Robbery- relationship between use of force and completion of theft (jewellery box)

Lockley

Robbery- relationship between use of force and completion of theft (beer)

Robinson

Robbery- a theft must be complete for robbery to have occurred

Waters

For a completed robbery there must also be a completed theft

Brown 1985

Burglary- entry must be ‘effective’

Ryan

Burglary- entry need not always be ‘effective’

B&S leathley

Burglary- 25 foot freezer container held to be a building

Norfolk constabulary v seekings & Gould

Burglary- lorry trailer (with wheels) not a building despite being stationary and having electricity - still a vehicle

Walkington

Burglary- part of a building; where d is legally allowed in one part of the building but trespasses into another

Collins

Burglary- d cannot be considered a trespassser unless he knew he was trespassing or was reckless in entering premises without consent

Smith & jones

Burglary- where d has permission to enter a building but then goes beyond that permission he can be considered a trespasser