OFFENCES AGAISNT PROPERTY: THEFT

S1 of the Theft Act 1968 defines theft:

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

S3- appropriation- any assumption of any rights of owner

s3(1)- “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner”

R V LAWRENCE- consent

Taxi driver took too much money from wallet of passenger who didn’t speak language. The consent to appropriation of the money was only to the correct amount, not the excess, because of the deception.

R V MORRIS- switching labels

Switched labels of two products in store, but hadn’t gone through checkout yet when arrested. Upheld conviction- appropriated rights of owner by switching labels. Doesn’t have to be all rights of an owner.

R V GOMEZ- consent

Worked as shop assistant, persuaded manager to accept their goods for two cheques (which d knew were worthless). The consent to appropriation of the goods was nt genuine because of the deception about the value of cheques.

R V VINDALL- taking and abandoning goods

D’s stole a bike and then abandoned it a short time later distance away. Appropriation occurred in the initial taking of the bike and/or abandoning the bike.

R V PITHAM AND HENL- assuming rights of owner

D’s ‘sold’ furniture belonging to another person and in that person’s house. Appropriation occurred by assuming the rights to sell another owner’s goods.

R V HINKS- gift

  • assumed rights of an owner, even if owner approved, can be appropriation (this was the case of v having very low intelligence, and d [his carer] always receiving ‘gifts’)

S4- property- can be tangible or intangible

  • s4(1) defines property to include “money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”

OXFORD V MOSS

  • information is not property, so cannot be stolen

R V KELLY AND LINDSAY

  • dead body can be property

s4(3)- plants growing in wild cannot be stolen, e.g blackberrys unless sold.

s4(4)- wild animals cannot be stolen unless held in captivity, like a zoo/

S5- belonging to another- ownership, possession or control

R V TURNER

  • an owner can be convicted of theft of his own property (so long as, at the time, the property in question “belonged to another”)

RICKETS V BASILDON MAGISTRATES

  • goods left outside charity shop as donation to charity- goods stolen as either belonged to donor of goods or charity shop

R V WOODMAN

  • d took remaining scrap metal that was left over by his company selling scrap metal. there was a warning to keep trespassers out and was fenced off. convicted despite company not bowing there was any scrap left. s5(3)- property received under an obligation, TA’68 still tris to make sure said property is considered to ‘belong to the other’

  • R V WAIN : Wain raised money via a telethon for a charity. He spent the money himself but intended to replace it.

  • R V HALL: Army sergeant sold a duplicate medal sent to him by mistake . Guilty: Ministry of Defence retained an equitable interest in the medal so d was guilty. s5(4): property received by another’s mistake

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL REFERENCE (NO.1 OF 1983): D received an overpayment of wages into her bank account. She neither withdrew nor returned it. Guilty: she was under an obligation to return the thing in action- the overpayment in her bank account

  • R V GILKS: A bookmaker paid out a bet in error over the name of the horse. The bettor kept the money. Not guilty: no rights wee appropriated as betting transactions could not be enforced by law.

s2- dishonesty: D’s behaviour will not be considered dishonest if:

s2(1)(a)- d honestly believes they have legal right to property (r v robinson) or

s2(1)(b)- d honestly believes the owner would consent (davidge v bunnet)

HOLDEN

D was charged with the theft of scrap tires from his workplace. As the test is subjective, a person was not dishonest if he genuinely believed that he had a legal right to the property.

R V SMALL

The defendant believed that an old car had been abandoned, so fixed it up and took it. D honestly believed he had the legal right to take the car, so was not dishonest.

R V ROBINSON

D went to collect money he was owed and kept a £5 note which dropped out of the debtor’s husband’s pocket. There was no theft because he had an honest belief that he was entitled to the money.

IVEY CASINOS

TEST FOR DISHONESTY. Dusted unfair techniques while playing cards in a casino. Deciding whether or not a d’s conduct should be considered dishonest should reflect what ordinary, decent people would consider it do be. D does not have to be aware of this.

BARTON AND BOOTH

D’s ran a nursing home and preyed on elderly and vulnerable residents. The test for dishonesty in criminal law is that set out in the case of Ivey v Genting. ONLY CITE THIS CASE FOR DISHONESTY, CAN CITE IVEY TOO BUT THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT. TEST- test for dishonesty is purely objective- whether an ordinary and reasonable person, believing the same facts as D, would consider them to be dishonest

s2(1)(c)- d honestly believes the owner cannot be found having taken reasonable steps

  • if none of above apply the jury apply common sense view or the test established in IVEY. GENTING CASINOS confirmed in BARTON AND BOOTH

S6- intention to permanently deprive- to take forever or for a period equivalent to outright taking

LLOYD

The projectionist at a local cinema gave D a film to make an illegal copy. By returning the film in it’s original state, it was not possible to prove an intention to permanently deprive.

VELUMYL

D’s took cash from the office safe. He was going to replace the money later. He had the intention of permanently depriving the company of the banknotes, even if he intended to replace them.

DPP V LAVENDER

D’s used doors from a council property to replace damaged doors in his girlfriend’s flat. D was dealing with the doors as his own by moving them form one property to another without permission.

R V EASOM

D rummaged through a handbag in a cinema, and replaced it without taking anything. D had not intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag or items in it so not guilty. CONDITIONAL INTENT- nothing worth stealing so didn’t steal.

CC OF AVON AND SOMERSET CONSTABULRY V SMITH

D’s broke into a parked car and removed two cases. They inspected the contents and hid the cases away from the car. D had intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag or items in it so he was guilty of theft.

AR

s3,4 and 5 theft

MR

s2 and 6

ALL FIVE ELEMENTS MUST BE PROVEN