AQA A2 Law Unit 4 - Theft

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Amy
  • Created on: 22-04-14 19:59

Theft - Actus Reus - Appropriation

The act in which the defendant treats the goods as his own 

Pitman v Hehl (1977) - Sold victims furniture, did not have the right

Morris (1984) - Altered the labels at the supermarket, assumed the rights of the supermarket

Lawrence (1972) - Taxi Driver - Consent does not excuse Theft 

Gomez (1993) - Invalid cheques - still appropriation if  good were released with owners consent

Hinks (1998) - Money Transfer - Appropriation can be through voluntary gifts "Dishonesty"

1 of 5

Theft - Actus Reus - Property

Property includes money and all other property real or personal, including things in action and other intangable property

Personal Property

Kelly & Lindsey (1998) - Body parts - College owed body parts no right to take them

Things in action

Marshall (1998) - Underground tickets - Underground owned tickets even though given = theft 

Other Intangiable Property 

Oxford V Moss (1979) - Papers taken and returned - Knowledge of papers cannot be stolen 

R v Akbar - Stolen Papers not Returned - Convicited of Theft

2 of 5

Theft - Actus Reus - Belonging to another

Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control over it. The owner has the fullest rights over the property, but the possesser can enjoy it 

  • Webster (2006) - Duplicate Items -  doesn't belong to him but MofD, selling = theft
  • Turner (No.2) (1971) - Stealing car back (Parts) - Steals other persons rights to good = theft
  • Woodman (1974) - Control without knowning - Metal owned by factory,  though he didn't know

Abandoned Property 

No owner of that property. Thrown away doesn't mean it's abandonded = owned by council 

Williams v Phillips (1957) - Rubbish collectors - sold objects, kept profit, property not theirs

Received under obligation 

 Davidge and Bunnett (1984) - Gas Bills - has a direct purpose and should be used for it

Property Obtained by Mistake 

Attorney Generals Reference (No.1 of 1983) (1985) - Overpaid - Attempt to restore = no theft

3 of 5

Theft - Mens Rea - Dishonesty

Has no Legal definition 

  • A) He has the right (Law) to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or 3rd party (Genuine Belief)
  • B) would have that persons consent, if the other knew the appropriation and circumstance
  • C) Person who owns the property cannot be found 

Small (1987) - Old car - Genunie belief to be abandoned - stole it = No theft Genuine  

Robinson (1977) - £7 owed - D stole £5 from V's wife - genuine belief  - No Theft

  • Would have the consent anyway - taking without asking - NOT DISHONESTY
  • Owner can't be found - not theft. Saw the owner drop it = Theft
  • Willing to pay - still theft

Ghosh Test - Ghosh (1982) - Doctors wages - Q -Yes = Dishonest 

  • Action dishonest according to the reasonable man's standards and honest people?
  • Did the defendant realise that his actions were dishonest by those standards 
4 of 5

Theft - Mens Rea - Intention to permanently depriv

Occurs when a persons intention is to treat anothers property as their own 

If they have the intention to give it back - not guilty

  • (1)Disposing of the property regardless of the others rights
  • (2)Borrowing or lending making it equal to disposing 

(1) - DPP v J and Others (2002) - Breaking headphones - Intention to deprive

(2) - Lloyd (1985) - Removal of film - Intention to give back - not guilty

(1) - Velumyl (1989) - Companies Notes - Intention to deprive does not count with similar items

(1) - Lavender (1994) - Council door - Intent to deprive council of that door 

Conditional Intent

Easom (1971) - Handbag in cinema - Intention to deprive was intentional but not enough 

5 of 5


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »