Property
- Created by: BethPilsbury
- Created on: 11-11-20 15:11
View mindmap
- Property
- Theft
- MR- dishonesty S2, intention to permanently deprive S6
- AR- appropriationS3, property S4, belonging to another S5
- Appropriation- assume rights of an owner. To use, consume, sell and destroy
- R V Morris, Anderton V Burnside- appropriation took place when there was an adverse interference with the right of the owner
- Lawrence V MPC- theft can occur even with V’s consent
- Property: real (land or things fixed to it), things in action (enforced in law e.g.copyright), intangible (not physical e.g. patent)
- Can’t steal: plants flowers, fruits fungi from the wild unless intend to sell S4(3),wild creatures not usually tame or in captivity S4(4), electricity
- Can’t steal body parts- Kelly or corpses- Sharpe
- Oxford V Moss- not theft, intended to return, knowledge appropriated but not held as property
- Can’t steal: plants flowers, fruits fungi from the wild unless intend to sell S4(3),wild creatures not usually tame or in captivity S4(4), electricity
- Belonging to another- possession or control of property or proprietary interest
- R V Turner-guilty of theft of his own car, garage had possession and control at the time
- Davidge V Burnett-legal obligation to pay bills (spent money for bills)
- Mistake- Attorney General’s reference No.1 1983-possible theft conviction, legal obligation to return the money
- Intention to permanently deprive
- DPP V Lavender- intending to treat a ting as one’s own regardless of the other’s rights
- Velumyl- Intention to permanently depriving company of the exact banknotes
- R V Lloyd- borrowing only constitutes intention to permanently deprive if goodness and virtue has gone
- Dishonesty: Gosh test-1) considered dishonest by ordinary standards of reasonable person 2)D aware actions considered dishonest
- Robbery - Theft +force
- Completed theft- R V Zerei- judge not laid down deference between intention to permanently deprive and depriving for short period of time, conviction quashed
- Use of force- R V Dawson and James- v nudged by D, lost balance for D to steal his wallet
- R V Clauden- v’s bag snatched, seen to be force as there was contact between D and v
- RP and others V DPP- no more force than removing an item from a pocket
- Threat of force- B and R V DPP- a)no need for v to feel threatened b) implied threat surrounding him c) some force used
- ‘On any person’- person threatened doesn’t need to be the person whom left occurs
- Use of force immediately before or at the time of theft- Hale- theft considered ongoing
- Lockely- guilty
- Burglary
- S9(1)- enters building or any part of building as trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH or unlawful damage to the building or anything in it
- S9(1)(b)- entered building or any part of building as trespasser, steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or inflicts or attempts to inflict GBH on any persons in the building
- Entry - Ryan- evidence D made an effective entry even though he was unable to stea
- Building or part of a building- e.g. houseboats and caravans, sheds ad outbuildings
- B and S V Leathley- had locks, sleepers and electricity- building
- Norfolk Constabulary V Seekings and Gould- not building, wheels
- R V Walkington- guilty under S9(1)(A), entered with intent to steal as trespasser, customers not permitted behind the counter
- Trespasser- Dont have permission to enter
- R V Collins- no evidence was a trespasser UNLESS D did do knowing he was on or was reckless to entering w/o permission
- R V Smith and Jones- D was a trespasser for the purpose of S9(1)(b)
- Theft
Comments
No comments have yet been made