S.1 THEFT ACT 1968

Frage	Antworten
What is theft?	Theft is defined under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 and is 'the act of dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it'.
s.3 Appropriation	Appropriation is defined as 'any assumption of the rights of the owner amounts to an appropriation, this includes where the defendant comes across the property (innocently or not) without stealing it or any later assumption of rights by keeping it and dealing with it as owner'.
R V PITMAN AND HEHL	Appropriation took place at the point of sale.
R V MORRIS	The appropriation of any of the rights of the owner amounts to appropriation. This includes the act of swapping price labels.
R V LAWRENCE	Appropriation can take place even when the defendant is given the owners consent.
R V GOMEZ	Another case of appropriation taking place even where there is consent.
R V HINKZ	The Court of Appeal held that a voluntary gift can also amount to an appropriation.
s.4 Property	Property is defined as 'including money and all other property, whether real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property'.
R V OXFORD AND MOSS	Confidential information, such as an exam paper, does not constitute as property under the Theft Act.
LOW V BLEASE	Electricity does not constitute as property.
R V SHARPE	Dead bodies or body parts are not seen as being property under the Theft Act.
R V KELLY AND LINDSEY	Dead bodies and body parts may be property if they have been preserved for educational or scientific reasons.
s.5 Belong to another	The property that the defendant steals must belong to another - this meaning that the defendant is not the owner of the property.
s.5(1)	'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any right or interest'.
R V TURNER	The garage had possession of the car and therefore, it belonged to them.
WILLIAMS V PHILLIPS	Where property is left out as refuse for the local authority to collect, it still belongs to another.
R V BASILDON MAGISTRATES COURT	Property left outside of a charity shop still belongs to another.
R V WOODMAN	A person can have property belonging to them even if they do not know at the time that they are possession of such property.
SULLIVAN V BALLION	Removing money from a dead body does not amount to taking property belonging to another.
s.5(3)	'Where a person receives property from an account of another and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property in a particular way, the property should be regarded as belonging to another'.
R V HALL	The defendant was under no legal obligation to deal with the money in a particular way.
DAVIDGE V BURNETT	The obligation to deal with the property in a particular way must be a legal obligation.
R V WAIN	Where a person is given money to pass to another (charity money), an obligation to deal with the money in a particular way arises.
s.5(4)	'Where a person receives property due to a mistake and is under an obligation to make restoration, the property shall be regarded as belonging to the person entitled to restoration'.
ATTORNEY GENERALS REFERENCE NO.1	The defendant received money by mistake and therefore, had an obligation to return it.
R V GILKS	The defendant was mistakenly paid winnings. As the transaction was a wager, there was no legal obligation on the defendant to return the money.
s.2 Dishonesty	It must be clear that the defendant acted dishonestly in stealing property.
R V GHOSH	Dishonestly is established through the Ghosh test; 'would the defendant's actions be regarded as dishonest by the standards of honest and reasonable people?' 'Was the defendant aware that his actions would be regarded as dishonest by the standards of honest and reasonable people?'
s.2(1) exceptions	However there are certain exceptions in which the defendant will not be deemed as dishonest.
s.2(1)(a)	The defendant appropriates property in the honest belief that he had the right in law to appropriate the property on behalf of himself or another.
s.2(1)(b)	If he appropriates the property in the honest belief that he would have had the other's consent if they knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it.
s.2(1)(c)	If he appropriates property in the honest belief that the owner of the property cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
R V SMALL	The defendant believed he had the right in law to appropriate the car.
s.6 Intention to permanently deprive	It must be established that the defendant had the intention to permanently deprive the other of their property.
s.6(1)	'The defendant treats the property as his own, to dispose of regardless of the others rights'.
R V VINALL	It does not need to be proved that the defendant actually permanently deprive the property, only that they intended to.
R V ZEREI	Taking the car by violence irrespective of the rights of the owner is completely different to an intention to permanently deprive.
DPP V LAVENDER	A wider approach can be given to the interpretation of this element in order to convict offenders.
R V MARSHALL	The defendant had the intention to deprive London Underground of their tickets as they treated the tickets as their own.
Borrowing property	Borrowing property does not normal amount to an intention to permanently deprive.
R V LLOYD	Borrowing only amounts to theft where all 'the goodness and virtue' has been taken out of the property.
R V VELUMYL	Borrowing or lending money may amount to theft if it is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Conditional intent	If the defendant in intends to permanently deprive the property only if a certain condition is met, then he had no intention.
R V EASOM	'What may be loosely described as conditional appropriation will not do...'

Nächster

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Chantal Briancon vor mehr als 8 Jahre