Theft Act and Cases

• A person is guilty of theft if they:
  • Dishonestly
  • Appropriate
  • Property
  • Belonging to another
  • With intention of permanently depriving the other of it
• Sections 2-7 define these terms

Assumption is any of the rights of a owner (not just taking something)

• Pitham v Hehl - D sold V's property and was guilty of theft
• Morris - switched price labels, assumed rights
• Lawrence - Taxi driver overcharged by £5
• Gomezstolen cheques that bounced, even with owenr's consent the purchase was thief
• Hinks - low IQ, gift was valid as he understood the value
• Atakpu and Abrahams - Appropriation took place at one point in time, outside of English jurisdiction - not guilty.

Money and all property real or personal, including things in action (e.g. money)

• Kelly and Lindsay - a corpse's parts can be property
• Oxford v Moss - takes exam papers, but not guilty as the university still had the same exact papers

Things that cannot stolen:

• Wild flowers, foliage and fungi
• Wild creatures, unless reduced into the possession of another

Any person in possession or control, or with a proprietary interest

• Turner No 2 - D stole his own car
• Woodman - V did not know of their possession, but D still guilty
• R v Basildon - D tooks bags from the front and bin of a charity shop. Guilty because donor and shop owned it.
• Webster - D was given two medals and sold one. Guilty.
• Hall - D had no immediate obligation to deal w money
• Klineberg and Marsden - only £233 of £500000 paid in.

• Davidge and Bunnet - D used rent money given to her to buy Christmas presents
• AG Ref (1 of 1983) - D did not give £74 back after being overpaid, guilty.
• Gilks - D knew he'd been overpaid on a bet, didnt return it. Bets are not legally binding, he was not guilty

The motive is not relevant, (lack of) consent/permission is:

Behaviour that is not dishonest:

• if the defendant believes they have th right to deprive the other of it
• if they believe they would have the victim's concent
• if the person who owns the property is unknown, and cannot be found by taking reasonable steps

Cases

• Ghosh - D claimed fees for operations he did not perform, but to the same value of what he did. Ghosh test: objective and subjective test
• Ivey - deemed Ghosh test old law, only the objective test is relevant, even if D does not think they are being dishonest

Even if it is replaced by something similar, it is the specific property that is concerned

• Velumyl - D permanently deprived V of the specific notes
• Zerei - As D only took the car a short distance, he was not guilty of theft
• DPP v Lavender - D took council flat door to another council flat. Guilty as he deprived the council of the use
• Lloyd - projectionist lent a film to D to copy. It was not permentnely deproved, so there was no theft

Appropriation - too wide a definition and scope

Assumption at one point in time - Fraud Act 2006 contradicts this

Theft of gifts - unclear under Gomez

Conflict of Civil and Criminal law - Hinks

Dishonesty is difficult to understand