Theft Act 1968

  • Created by: tomquelch
  • Created on: 23-09-19 14:19

AR - Appropriation

D ASSUMES RIGHT OF 1 OWNER

- R v Morris = switching labels in shop.

DOES NOT REQUIRE PHYSICAL CONTACT

- R v Pitham = V in prison, D stole V's furniture.

LATER ASSUMPTION OF RIGHTS OF AN OWNER

- No theft if initial appropriation is not dishonest, or he lacks intention to deprive.

- BUT where D later assumes rights of owner this will amount to theft. 

APPROPRIATION WITH CONSENT

- R v Lawrence = V allowed D to take fare from V's wallet.

- R v Morris = HL price switching case.

- R v Gomez = D supplied fraudulent goods, consent is irrelevant to appropriation.

1 of 4

AR - Appropriation s3/4

GIFT BY OWNER

- R v Gomez = gift obtained by false representation.

- R v Hinks = V willingly gave D money even though he had low IQ level.

PROPERTY WHICH CAN BE STOLEN

- When D has a legal right to seize or regain property.

PROPERTY INCLUDES

- Money, all posessions, land, debts, patents.

- Body parts = R v Kelly & Lindsay

- Confidential information = Oxford v Moss

WILD PLANTS AND CREATURES ETC

- Mushrooms, flowers, fruit foliage = wild cannot be stolen. If picked for sale then amount to property.

2 of 4

Property belonging to another s5

D DOES NOT HAVE TO STEAL FROM AN OWNER

- R v Turner = D stole his car back from garage.

- Posession need not be lawful e.g. D can appropraite drugs from drug dealer.

PROPRIETARY RIGHT OR INTEREST

- Co-ownership - R v Bonner = D stole partnership property.

- Lost property can be stolen. Abandoned property belongs to no one.

- R v Basildon Magistrates = Bags left outside charity shop, not abandoned.

- R v Toleikis = Clothes left outside house for charity shop, not abandoned.

PROPERTY RECIEVED BY D UNDER AN OBLIGATION

- Davide v Bennett = D misapplied money to house bill, theft.

- R v Hall = D travel agent received customers' deposits, no obligation to use deposits in particular way. Owner owns money once recieved.

3 of 4

MR - Theft Act 1968

= At time of appropriation, D must be dishonest and must intend to permanently deprive.

WHAT IS DISHONESTY?

- Jury must decide. - deceitful, untrustworthy, lack of integrity.

- Ivey v Genting Casinos = Wasnt dishonest however court appealed and found it wouldnt be fair.

- D is not dishonest when he appropriates property from another. When he believes he has a legal right, D believes the other would consented to it or D beleives that the other cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE

- Must be proven that D intended to permanently deprive O of property.

- R v Velumyl = destruction of property by D.

THEFT ACT 1968 S5

- Where D appropriates property belonging to another without the meaning the other to permanently lose the thing itself, D is nevertheless regarded as having IPD.

4 of 4

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »