Theft
- Created by: natalia ailoaie
- Created on: 14-02-23 15:53
View mindmap
- THEFT Act 1968- dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive
- appropriation-any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
- r v Morris - the defendant has to assume only one right of the owners
- r v Pitham and hehl - appropriating the right to sell
- Lawrence v MPC- even if the victim consents, there can still be an appropriationif the consent is not genuine
- r v hinks- even accepting a valid gift can sometimes amount to appropriation
- s3(1)- where d came by the property innocently but later assumes a right over it
- s4(1)- property includes money, real, personal,things in action and intangible
- r v welsh- bodily fluids such as urine can be property and can be stolen
- r v KELLY AND LINDSAY- a corpse is not a property, however if they acquire vale like artistic value they made called as a property
- Oxford v moss- knowledge is not a property
- s5(1)-belonging to another- possession or control of the property or proprietary interest in the property
- r v turner- even the legal owner is capable of stealing his own property if the possession is with someone else
- Ricketts v basildon- if the property is not in possession of anyone then the last owner will still have legal rights over it
- s5(3)- if d receives property and is under legal obligations to use it in a particular way, that property sill still be treated as belonging to the giver - davidge v Burnett
- s5(4)- if d receives property by mistake and is under legal obligations to return it, the property will be treated as belonging to the party that made the mistake- att gen no 1 of 1983
- s2- dishonesty
- s2(1)(a)- d believes he has a legal right over the property- Robinson
- s2(1)(b)- d believes the person whom it belongs to would've consented to the appropriation- holden
- s2(1)(c)- d believes that the real owner can't be found- small
- Ivey test- what did d believe at the time, did d believe his actions were dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people
- r v barton and booth- Ivey test applies to criminal offences
- s6(1)-intention to permanently deprive- treating the property as your own
- DPP v lavender- even moving property that is not yours can be treating the property as your own
- r v Easom- conditional intent doesn't amount to intent to permanently deprive
- r v Warner- d can only intent to temporarily deprive v of his property
- r v VELUMYL- money is always permanently depriving as you can't bring the same notes back
- r v Lloyd - borrowing can amount to an intention to deprive when the goodness, virtue and value have been removed from the property
- DPP v lavender- even moving property that is not yours can be treating the property as your own
- appropriation-any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
Comments
No comments have yet been made