Theft

Theft

Dishonestly
1. Under S.1(2) D can be dishonest even if he appropriates the property without a view to gain. The motive of D is irrelevant
2. Under S.2(2) an appropriation may be dishonest even though D is willing to pay for the property
3. THEFT ACT 1968 gives 3 situations which are not dishonest. Where D appropriates the property in the belief:
  1. That he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a third person
    1. S.2(1)(a)
  2. He would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
    1. S.2(1)(b)
  3. The person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
    1. S.2(1)(c)
  4. D's belief only has to be genuine. Doesn't have to be reasonable
    1. SMALL (1987)
4. If s.2 doesn't't apply, GHOSH (1982) test must be used
  1. Was Ds act dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? If YE, magistrates or jury must consider 2nd question
  2. Did D realise his act would be regarded as dishonest by those standards?
Appropiation
1. S.3 of THEFT ACT 1968
2. Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
  1. MORRIS (1983)
    1. Only one right has to be assumed. Did not have to assume all
3. Can be an appropriation even if the owner of the property consented to D taking it
  1. GOMEZ (1993)
4. There can be an appropriation even if the woner of the property has made a legal gift to D
  1. HINKS (2000)
Property
1. S.4(1) of THEFT ACT 1968
2. Includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other tangible property
3. Real property
  1. Land and buildings
    1. E.g. D severs something from the land (e.g. topsoil, trees)
    2. E.g. D is a tenant and removesspmething which is considered a fixtured structure of the rented accomodation (E.g. fixed cupboard)
  2. S.4(2): Picking mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foilage growing wild on land which belongs to another ids theft of property if it s taken for sale or reward or other comercial reason
4. Personal Property
  1. Covers all moveable items
  2. S.4(1): Dead bodies and body parts can be personal property if they have been treated in any way (e.g. by dissection)
    1. KELLY AND LINDSAY (1998)
  3. S.4(4): Wild creatures not personal property unless they have been tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity
5. Thing in action
  1. A right which can be enforced against another persson by a court action (E.g. the right the payment of the amount in a bank account
6. Other tangible property
  1. Property that doesn't exist in a physical sense
  2. EXCEPTION: Electricity and Electronically stored info are not tangible property under S.4(1)
    1. OXFORD V MOSS (1979)
Belonging to another
1. Section 5 (1) of the THEFT ACT
2. Any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest
3. The possession or control does not have to be lawful. Can steal from a theif
4. Its possible to steal your own property if it is under someone else's possession or control, or someone else has proprietary interest in it
  1. TURNER (no 2)(1971)
5. Its possible for someone to be in possession or control of property even though they do not know it is there
  1. WOODMAN (1974)
6. S.5(3) where proprt is handed over to D by V and there is a legal obligation on D to keep it or deal with i t in a certain way, it is still considered as belonging to V
  1. DAVIDGE V BUNNET (1984)
  2. there must be an obligation to keep or deal with the property 'in a particular way'
    1. HALL (1972)
7. Under S.where D receives property by mistake and there is a legal obligation to give it back, then it still belongs to another
  1. ATTORNEY- GENERAL'S REFERENCE (No 1 OF 1983)(1985)
8. Property doesn't belong to another where is has been abandoned
Intention to permanently deprive the other of it
1. Although D does not mean V to lose property permanently, D has the intention to treat it as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights
  1. This applies when D has the intention to sell the property back to V
    1. DPP V LAVENDER (1994)
2. Normally borrowing not theft. HOWEVER under S.6 it can be where it is for a period of time and in circumstances making it equilivent to an outright taking or disposal
  1. LLOYD (1985)
    1. Held that this meant D borrows property but his intention is to return it in such a changed state that all its goodness, virtue or practical value has gone
3. PROBLEM with D have conditional intention to permanently deprive. E.g. If D picks up and examines property intending to take it if it is worth stealing
  1. EASOM (1971)
    1. Rummaged through handbag. Returned handbag without taking anything.
    2. CoA held that conditional intention was not sufficient for theft
4. D will have the intention if he picks up property then has a change of mind and outs it back where he found it

Nächster

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Millie Rodgers vor fast 8 Jahre