a level law theft act 1968 AO1

define theft charged under theft act 1968

define theft charged under theft act 1968

section 1 - a person is guilty of theft he dishonestly appropiates property belonging to another with intention to deprive other of it

what is the AR of theft — appropriation

• Section 3 - it could involve physical taking but it could be wider than that — no need to physically remove the item, only to treat it as his own

• it could involve physical but it could be wider than that -- no need to physically remove the item, only to treat it as his own

• it is any assumption of the rights of the owner - any assumption of right of owner with or without consent — examples Gomez, Pitham v Hehl. it can be of any or all of the rights of the owner — Morris. it includes the right of the owner to: throw away/gift away/destroy/sell/keep

• relevance of consent in appropriation — lawrence, morris, gomez, hinks — there can be appropiation even with consent obtained by deception or not

• a gift can constitue appropriation — hopkins and kendrick, hinks

• does appropriation takes place at one point in time — atakpu — yes appropriation in europe or is it continuing act — Hale — Roberry continuing act AR appropiation

What is the AR of theft — property

• Section 4(1) — property can be money, tangible (real i.e land, real estate or personal) or intangible (things in action like money in a bank account or intangible i.e intangible like intellectual property — patents and copyright)

• what constitutes property — Oxford V moss — exam questions not property but the exam paper is, electricity is not property but the is specific offence of abstracting electricity

• exceptions can be find in:

• section 4(2) (a) — land can be stolen if a trustee/personal representatives takes land in breach of his duties as a trustee/personal representatives

• section 4(2) (b) — land can be stolen if someone not in possession of land severs anything forming part of the land from the land

• section 4(2) ( c) — land can be stolen if a tenant takes a fixture or structure from the land let to him

• section 4(3) — what is not property and cannot be stolen - wild plants and flowers unless for sale/financial reward/commercial purposes

• section 4(4) — what is not property and cannot be stolen — wild animals unless in captivity or carcass (hunted animal under licence to hunt in wildlife park/safari) which has been taken under possession

  types of property

• money — coins and banknotes off any currency

• real property — land and buildings on land (s4(2))

• things in action — a right which can be enforced against another person by an action in law such as a bank account (s4(3)) (s4(4))

• other intangible property — things which have no physical presence such as a computer game but can be stolen under the act

What is the AR of theft — belonging to another

• Section 5 — belonging to another — ownership, possession or control, obligation under s5(3) — possession/control does not have to be legal

• Turner (no.2) — can steal from yourself — belongs to another if the other has possession and control of it

• R (application of Ricketts) v Baslidon Mags Court — donated goods left outside a charity shop - belong to donor until new owner takes possession

• you cant steal abandoned property — Woodman, Rostron and Collinson

• what if the owner does not know they have the property — it still ‘belongs to another’ — case of Woodman

• Exceptions to when property has to ‘belong to another

• Section 5(2) — trust property — simply where property is held by a trustee on behalf of another who can be liable for theft of trust property

• Section 5(3) — when money is given for a particular purpose — Davidge v Bunnett — the theft act 1968 tries to make sure that such property is still considered to ‘belong to the other’ for purposes of the law of theft

• Section 5(4) — when property is acquired by mistake — what if you are overpaid by mistake and its not your fault - under elements of AR of theft and AG ref (NO.1 of 1983)(1985) — not ‘belonging to another’ but legal obligation to restore but s5(4) exception — shadrockh- cigari — a bank mistakenly credited £268,000 into a child’s account rather than £268. the defendant (child guardian), took the money out of the account with bank drafts signed by the child. Held: the defendant was held liable for theft as under section 5(1) the bank retained an equitable interest in the drafts and under section 5(4) he was under a legal obligation to return the money received by mistake

What is the MR of theft — dishonesty

• Section 2 (1) (a) — defendant is not dishonest if he/she honestly believes they have a legal right to property — Turner (No.2)

• Section 2 (1) (b) — defendant is not dishonest if he/she honestly believes owner would consent — Holden

• Section 2 (1) (c ) — defendant is not dishonest if he/she honestly believes owner cannot be found having taken reasonable steps — Small

• if none of the above apply, the jury apply the test of current standards of ordinary, decent people — test in barton and booth based on ivey

• 1. was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts?

• 2. was his/her conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary, decent people

• OBJECTIVE

• was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?

• SUBJECTIVE

• did the defendant know/believe he was dishonest as to the facts? — whether his knowledge or belief was reasonable is not a requirement but could be evidence of whether he had the knowledge or belief

• Section 2(2) — can be dishonest notwithstanding that defendant is willing to pay for the property appropriate

What it is the MR of theft — intention to permanently deprive

• Section 6 — intention to permanently deprive — to take forever or for period equivalent to outright taking— can be truly said to have lost all of it goodness or virtue or practical value and therefore there is intention to permanently deprive — Lloyd

• Case Examples

• R v Velumyl 1989 — takes money from a safe intending to return it later — not same bank notes — itpd

• R v Marshall (1998) — selling an underground ticket to another traveller — ticket is property of LUL — by selling it propitiation and itpd

• DPP v J and others (2002) — taking a pair of headphones breaking them and giving them back — goodness lost — itpd

• R v Lloyd (1985) — removing films from a cinema to illegally copy them — film can still be played for customers — not itpd

• R v Lavender (1994) — swapping doors from one house to put in another house — itpd

• conditional intent — insufficient — easom — took handbag to see if anything is worth taking then returned bag with contents

• how the property was catully disposed of can be evidence showing itpd — marshall — selling LUL ticket