- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.