Theft
- Created by: azdw
- Created on: 11-01-16 18:41
View mindmap
- Theft
- Theft Act 1968
- MR
- Dishonesty
- R v Ghosh - 1) the jury must consider if the defendant was dishonest by the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable people
- 2) the defendant must consider, if by the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable man, that he believed he was dishonest. (subjective approach- not fully subjective because must assess by objective standards) D must be aware he breached those standards.
- S2.1.a) a person's appropriation of property is not to be regarded as dishonest if he believed in law that he had the right to deprive the other of it.
- if he thought he would have had the other persons consent
- if he thought the property had been abandoned/ the owner couldn't be located
- immaterial that D may have been willing to pay - R v Morris- willing to pay but not that much
- R v Ghosh - 1) the jury must consider if the defendant was dishonest by the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable people
- ITTPD
- generally evident given the facts of the case
- if person says they will borrow coins/notes and use them, and then return them it is theft because it will never be the same coins/notes - R v Velumyl
- DPP v Lavendar - Ds girlfriend lived in council house and had damaged doors. D took doors from another property and used to replace - court said he assumed rights of owner as he treated doors like his own
- R v Lloyd - took film reels and copied and then returned. not theft because returned. no intention to permanently deprive.
- Dishonesty
- AR
- a) Property
- S4(1) Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property
- intangible = something you can't touch
- What can't be stolen?
- Information - Oxford v Moss - exam paper
- The human body and its products - R v Kelly showed that this is wrong. Artist. Royal college of surgeons.
- This case also shows that property doesn't have to be in lawful possession to be stolen
- S4(1) Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property
- b) Belonging to another
- S5(1) BTA shall regard as anyone having possession of control or, proprietary right or interest
- Can D steal property from another if the owner is unknown?
- R v Dyke and Munroe - relates to charity collections
- Can D steal property that he owns?
- Yes- R v Turner - car case - stole car to avoid paying for repairs
- Has it been lost or abandoned? Lost - BTA, abandoned - doesn't BTA
- Where a person gets property by anothers mistake it belongs to another - not you - R v Shadrokh - Cigari - $286 got $286,000
- Can D steal property from another if the owner is unknown?
- S5(1) BTA shall regard as anyone having possession of control or, proprietary right or interest
- c) Appropriation of the property by D
- S3(1) assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner
- R v Morris - changed price label on good in supermarket - judge said only has to assume one right
- can D steal with consent? yes - R v Gomez
- Is this limited to fraud cases? (Gomez) - no - R v Hinks - D stole £60,000 from V with their consent, but they were old with disabilities. Held - theft.
- How long does appropriation last for? it depends on circumstances. R v Atakpu - no appropriation because no finite end.
- S3(1) assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner
- Theft
- Theft Act 1968
- MR
- Dishonesty
- R v Ghosh - 1) the jury must consider if the defendant was dishonest by the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable people
- 2) the defendant must consider, if by the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable man, that he believed he was dishonest. (subjective approach- not fully subjective because must assess by objective standards) D must be aware he breached those standards.
- S2.1.a) a person's appropriation of property is not to be regarded as dishonest if he believed in law that he had the right to deprive the other of it.
- if he thought he would have had the other persons consent
- if he thought the property had been abandoned/ the owner couldn't be located
- immaterial that D may have been willing to pay - R v Morris- willing to pay but not that much
- R v Ghosh - 1) the jury must consider if the defendant was dishonest by the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable people
- ITTPD
- generally evident given the facts of the case
- if person says they will borrow coins/notes and use them, and then return them it is theft because it will never be the same coins/notes - R v Velumyl
- DPP v Lavendar - Ds girlfriend lived in council house and had damaged doors. D took doors from another property and used to replace - court said he assumed rights of owner as he treated doors like his own
- R v Lloyd - took film reels and copied and then returned. not theft because returned. no intention to permanently deprive.
- Dishonesty
- a) Property
Comments
No comments have yet been made