Theft

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 18-02-16 10:41
Lawrence v MPC (1971)
The prosecution must prove all 5 elements in order to secure a conviction
1 of 27
Morris (1983)
The def need not assume all of the owner’s rights, but any single right will do
2 of 27
Lawrence and Gomez (1993)
Whether the def has the consent of the owners in respect of the assumption is irrelevant to appropriation
3 of 27
Hinks (2001)
There can be appropriation of a valid gift or valid transfer of ownership to a def (in case, woman befriended friendly man of limited intelligence and influenced him to withdraw money and give it to her)
4 of 27
Mazo (1997)
OLD LAW: there could be no theft where the def had received a valid gift inter vivos
5 of 27
Briggs (2003)
Appropriation connotes a physical act (in case, no theft as def merely caused her elderly relatives’ house sale proceeds to be transferred to her bank account)
6 of 27
Hinks
the def deposited money in her account – thus, physical act.
7 of 27
Low v Blease (1975)
Electricity is not tangible property within meaning of s 4
8 of 27
Oxford v Moss (1979)
Confidential info is not prop (in case, student took exam paper, memorised questions, then put it back-no theft-no intention to perm deprive)
9 of 27
Sharpe (1857)
Corpses and body parts are not property
10 of 27
DPP v Smith (2006)
Body parts e.g. hair being cut off, can amount to property as it is tangible
11 of 27
Turner (No. 2) (1971)
It is possible to steal from yourself- CA: the car ‘belonged to’ the repairer at the time the def took it as the repairer had possession or control of it
12 of 27
Woodman (1974)
A person can be in control of property even if he is unaware of that fact
13 of 27
Bonner (1970)
Where the def and victim are co-owners of property, the def may be liable for theft from victim if he appropriates that property
14 of 27
Williams v Phillips (1957)
Abandoned property cannot be stolen, however the courts will not readily find that property is abandoned
15 of 27
Ricketts (2011)
Donated goods remain property of owner, then become under control of charity shop when left outside for collection
16 of 27
Hibbert v McKiernan (1948)
Since the golf club had intended to exclude others from interfering with the balls, there was a clear intention on the part of the members of the golf club to exercise control over the balls
17 of 27
Parker v BA (1982)
The occupiers must show an obv intention to exercise control over the premises where the lost prop is found and things on the premises
18 of 27
Gilks (1972)
For s 5(4) to apply, the oblig’n must be a legal one (not a moral or social one)
19 of 27
Wain (1995)
Where a person is given money to pass onto another, there is an oblig’n to deal with that money in a particular way
20 of 27
Vinall (2012)
Prosecution must merely prove that the def had the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property at the moment of approp’n
21 of 27
Zenei (2012)
Taking property for temporary period is not suff’t
22 of 27
Marshall (1998)
Where goods are returned, but their value lost or diminished, this is sufficient for permanent deprivation
23 of 27
Lloyd (1985)
CA: a mere borrowing is insufficient to constitute nec guilt, unless the intention is to return the thing in such a changed state that it can be truly said that all its goodness and virtue has gone
24 of 27
Velumyl (1989)
Where money is borrowed and the value replaced, this amounts to permanent deprivation as the exact banknotes/coins are not returned
25 of 27
Eassom (1971) and Husseyn (1977)
Conditional intention to steal something if it is worth stealing is not sufficient
26 of 27
Ghosh (1982)
the jury must consider whether the honest and reasonable person would regard what the def did as dishonest; Whether the def realised that the dishonest and reasonable person would regard her conduct as dishonest
27 of 27

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

The def need not assume all of the owner’s rights, but any single right will do

Back

Morris (1983)

Card 3

Front

Whether the def has the consent of the owners in respect of the assumption is irrelevant to appropriation

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

There can be appropriation of a valid gift or valid transfer of ownership to a def (in case, woman befriended friendly man of limited intelligence and influenced him to withdraw money and give it to her)

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

OLD LAW: there could be no theft where the def had received a valid gift inter vivos

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal resources »