Theft

?
What is defined in S1 Theft Act 1968?
Theft
1 of 24
What is defined in S3 (1) Theft Act 1968?
Appropriation
2 of 24
In which case did a woman swap the label of own brand beans for heinz?
R v Morriss
3 of 24
Which case demonstrated that consent is not an issue dealt with in appropriation?
DPP v Gomez
4 of 24
Which case demonstrated that dishonesty is not an issue dealt with in appropriation?
R v Hinks
5 of 24
What is defined in S4 Theft Act 1968?
Property.
6 of 24
What type of property is defined in S4 (2) Theft Act 1968?
Real property
7 of 24
Which case demonstrated things in action with the example of a bank card?
R v Marshall
8 of 24
Which case demonstrated other intangible objects with the example of knowledge?
Oxford v Moss
9 of 24
What was defined in S5 Theft Act 1968?
Belonging to another
10 of 24
Which case demonstrated that some rights overrule the right to possession?
R v Turner
11 of 24
Which case demonstrated that it was not necessary for the V to know they own the property?
R v Woodman
12 of 24
Which case demonstrated that you give up the right to property if you abandon it?
Williams v Phillips
13 of 24
Which case use used to demonstrate the point set out in S5(3) Theft Act 1968
Davidge & Bunnett
14 of 24
Section 5 (4) - if you receive property by mistake you are under legal obligation to .... ..........
make restoration
15 of 24
What is defined in S2 Theft Act 1968?
Dishonesty
16 of 24
If none of the exceptions on S2 apply what test to we use?
Ghosh Test
17 of 24
What is set out in S6 (1) Theft Act 1968?
intention to permanently deprive
18 of 24
In which case were headphones broken then returned which amounted to IPD?
DPP V J
19 of 24
In which case did the D take films and copy them and return the originals, found not IPD?
R v Lloyd
20 of 24
In R v Lloyd who said that it must be in such a changed state that all goodness and virtue has gone?
Lord Lane
21 of 24
In which case was it held to be IPD because the exact bank notes could not be returned?
R v Velumyl
22 of 24
In which case was it held that conditional intent was not sufficient?
R v Easom
23 of 24
In what case was it said that intention to treat something as your own was sufficient?
Raphael and Another
24 of 24

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What is defined in S3 (1) Theft Act 1968?

Back

Appropriation

Card 3

Front

In which case did a woman swap the label of own brand beans for heinz?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Which case demonstrated that consent is not an issue dealt with in appropriation?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Which case demonstrated that dishonesty is not an issue dealt with in appropriation?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »