- Created by: nicolestones
- Created on: 13-03-19 17:02
D had switched the price labels of two bottles on the shelf of a supermarket.
= H O L up held conviction of theft as D appropriated.
Pitham and hehl 1977
Appropriation-right to sell property
D offered to sell furniture belonging to a person in prison.
= C O A held the offer to sell was an appropriation .
Appropriation- owner of property consented to D taking it .
D was assistant manger of shop and persuaded manger to let customer pay in 2 cheques.cheques were stolen and had no value.
= H O L held appropriation can take place even when the owner consents.
Appropriation- owner of property made an legal gift of it to D.
V was a man with low IQ.he had given D £60,000 and a TV set who claimed to be this career.
= D took advantage, still appropriation.
Real property stolen under
D severs something from the land
D is a tenant and removes something which is considered a fixture or structure of the rented acomidation.
Growing wild on land which belongs to another is theft of property if it’s taken for sale/reward/commercial
S.4(1) and Kelly and Lindsay 1998
Dead bodies parts can be stolen from they have been treated in some way.
Taken body parts from royal college of surgeons.
= theft as they stolen them for other purposes
Wild creatures are NOT personal unless they have been tamed or odinarily kept in captivity
Some types of intangible property which are not property.electricty is NOT a property for the purpose of theft.
Oxford v moss 1978
Knowledge of the questions in the exam paper.
= not held property under s.4(1)
Turner (no 2) (1971)
Belonging to another-possible to steal own property under someone else’s possession/control
D left car at garage for repairs, at middle of night he used his spare key to take the car without paying.
= garage had possession/control at the time D appropriated it. D guilty for stealing own car .
Belonging to another-possible fopr someone to be in control/possession over property even though they dont know its there.
V sold its sc rap metal to another company which arranged for it to be removed. unknown to V there was still some left on site.D took the remaining scrap metal.
= C O A upheld copnvcition of theft, as irrelevant that V did not know there was property remaining on their sit, still belonged to V.
s.5(3) , Davidge v Bunnett 1984
property handed over to D by V there is a legal obigation on D to keep it or deal with it in a particular way.
DAVIDGE V BUNNETT 1984
D was guilt of theft when she had been given cheques from her flat mate to pay for the flat bills, but insteed D spent the cheques on chistmas gifts.
= There was an legal obligation to deal with the money in a particular way.
Must be an oligation to keep/ deal with the property in a particular way.
D was travel agents who received clients holiday deposits for their holidays. He paid the deposits into the business account. The business collapsed before he paid the money too book the holidays and the clients lost their deposits.
= C O A quashed conviction of theft as there was NO legal obligation to deal with the deposits in a particular way.
s.5(4) A-G reference (No 1 of 1983) 1985
Where D receives property by mistake and there is a legal obligation to give it back, still belongs to another.
D was a police officer who was overpaid due to accounting error by her employer. she acquitted of theft.
HOWEVER=C O A held in future this would amount to theft as D would be under a legal obligation to give the overpayment back.
D can bhe dishonest even if he appropriates the property without a view to gain.
An appropriation of property may be dishonest even though D is willing to pay for the property.
The 1968 act, 3 situations where its NOT dishonest
s.2(1)(a)= That he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person.
s.2(1)(b)= He would have the other's consent if the other know of the appropriation/ circumstances.
s.2(1)(c)= Person whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
D's belief in any of the 1968 act sistuations only has to be genuine. Does NOT hvae to be a reasonable beleif.
D took a car which he beleived had been abandoned. It had been left in the same place for 2 weeks with the keys left in.
= C O A quashed as D genuinely beleived the owner couldnt be found. WASN'T dishonest under s.2(1)(c)
Ivey v genting casino 2017
If s.2 doesnt apply, or may not succeed, the test for dishonest from the CIVIL CASE must be applied.
D was a company dircetor who took money from the company's safe. He said that he was owed money by a friend and he was going to replace the money when his friend repaid him.
= C O A upheld convicition of theft as he had intention to permanently deprive from the company.
DPP V LAVENDER 1994
D takes V's property with the intention of selling it back to v.
D had taken 2 doors from council property and used them to replace damaged doors in his girlfirend's flat which was also owned by the council.No permission for this had been given.
= divisonal court held that this amounted to theft as he intending to treat the doors as his own.
Borrowing property for a period of time and making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.not same value when returned.
D worked in a cinema and removed films for a few hours, enabling others to make pirate copies of them, and then he returned the orginial films.
= C O A quashed conviction of theft as his intention was NOT to return the films in a changed state.
D picks up and examines property intending to take it if it is worth stealing.
D picked up a handbag in a cinema, rummaged through the contents and then replaced the handbag without taking anything.
= even though he may have a conditional intention to permanently deprive, this was NOT sufficent for the crime of theft.
Corcoran v Anderton 1980
robbery-appropriation D does not ave to escape with the property.
One of Ds hit a woman in the back and tugged at her handbag,causing it to fal from her grasp to the grond. she screamed and both Ds ran off empty-handed.
= C O A upheld conviction of robbery , was complete theft and force was used.
Dawson and james 1976
D uses force, force can be small.
D 1 pushed V, causing him to lose his balance which enabled D2 to take his wallet.
= C O A upheld conviction of robbery as push is sufficient to be use of force.
P v DPP 2012
Force can be used/ threatened on any person.
D snashed a cig from V's hand without touching V.
= Divisonal court quashed conviction of robbery as there was no physical contact with V.Accepeted that force can be aplied indircetly.
before or at thime of the theft- appropriation an be an continuing act.
D1 and D2 entered V's house and while D1 was upstairs stealing a jewellery box, D2 was downstairs tying V up.
= C O A upheld conviction of robbery as appropriation can be a continuing act.
D was owed £7 by a woman, he went to ask her for it and a fight developed between D and the woman's husband. During the fight a £5 note dropped out of the husband's pocket, D picked it up and kept it.
= C O A quashed conviction of robbery as 1 of the elements of theft was missing: D is NOT dishonest under s.2(1)(a)theft act 1968.
B and R v DPP 2007
No need for V to be in fear, nor to actually aprehend force.
16 year old school-boy was stopped by a group of youths and asked for his mobile phone and money. V was pushed and his arms were held while he was searched.Ds took his money and a number of other items.
= Divisional court upheld conviction of robbery.