THEFT

?
  • Created by: LA1
  • Created on: 03-06-17 06:22
Definition
S1 Theft Act 1968 states "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
1 of 30
Appropriation Section 3
'Any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner'
2 of 30
Rights of The owner include
Take it, sell it, destroy it, lend it out, hire it and consume it
3 of 30
PITHAM V HEHL
D sold furniture belonging to another but it didn't leave the property, even though the owner wasn't deprived he was still appropriating the right of the owner.
4 of 30
MORRIS
D switched supermarket labels and his conviction was upheld as he assumed the rights of the owner
5 of 30
Consent to appropriation- LAWRENCE
Italian student in a taxi, held out wallet for taxi driver who took more. Claimed that it was an appropriation as the D consented but rejected.
6 of 30
Consent without deception HINKS
D befriended a man with low IQ who gave her a TV and £60,000 . Judge directed the jury to see if the man was mentally capable but the jury convicted as held he wasn't. How can you assume the rights of the owner when the property has been given to D?
7 of 30
Appropriation at one point in time- ATAKPU AND ABRAHAMS
Bought cars in Belgium and Germany using fake IDs, they were arrested at Dover and charged with theft.
8 of 30
Property S4
"Property includes money and all other property, real or personal including things in action and other intangible property"
9 of 30
KELLY AND LINDSAY
D took body parts from school to use for project. His conviction was upheld as body parts constitute property. This is good that the act i so wide that it includes so much
10 of 30
Real Property- Land and Buildings
S4(1) states property can be stolen and S4(2) states how it can be stolen=A trustee or personal rep who takes land in breach of duty, severs part of the land, tenant takes fixture or structure.
11 of 30
Things in action
A right which can be enforced against another person by an action in law
12 of 30
Other intangible property OXFORD V MOSS
No physical presence but can be stolen. In Oxford V Moss, the D was a university student who acquired paper he was due to sit. He was found not guilty. This is good for the D as confidential information cannot be stolen although its bad for the V.
13 of 30
BTA S5
"Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having a proprietary interest in it."
14 of 30
Possession or Control TURNER
D stole his own car from the garage without paying, he was guilty of stealing his own car as at that the garage were still i possession of it. This is good as it is so wide you can steal your own car.
15 of 30
Proprietary interest WEBSTER
D owns porpety and can be guilty of stealing it if another person has a proprietary interest in it. WEBSTER- The D was sent a medal as he was in the army but was sent another and sold it on ebay. He was guilty as the ministry still had a PI in it.
16 of 30
Property received under obligation DAVIDGE V BUNNETT
D was given money by flatmates to pay bill but bought xmas presents. H was guilty as he had an obligation to deal with the money in a certain way.
17 of 30
Propety received by mistake AGR NO 1 OF 1993
Under an obligation to make restoration. AGR- Ds employers accidentally overpaid her, quashed.
18 of 30
DISHONESTLY S2
"A persons appropriation isn't to be regarded as dishonest if he appropriates property in the belief he's got a right belief he'd have consent and the belief who's person it is cannot be discovered.
19 of 30
Cont.
There is a reliance on dishonesty to prove elements of theft. No definition of what is dishonest, only what isn't.
20 of 30
Willing to pay
A willingness to pay doesn't prevent Ds conduct from being dishonest.
21 of 30
GHOSH
D charged operation fees he didn't do and was convicted. There was a 2 stage test - Was what done dishonest according to ordinary standards? Did D realise?
22 of 30
Cont.
Leaves too much for the jury and theres too much emphasis on the objective test rather than Ds view.
23 of 30
ITPD S6
Intention to permanently deprive the other of it
24 of 30
VELUYML
D was a manager who took £5 from the office safe,it was held he ITPD the company even though he intended to pay it back.
25 of 30
Joyriding ZEREI
D approached man, took his car and then left it abandoned. Quashed of robbery as the judge misdirected the jury on ITPD.
26 of 30
DPP V LAVENDER
D took doors belonging to someone else for his girlfriends flat. Convicted as the doors belonged to the council at the time and he ITPD them of it.
27 of 30
Borrowing or lending LLOYD
Borrowing or lending isn't theft unless its for a period of time and in the circumstances, making it a taking or an outright disposal. LLOYD- projectionist at cinema, quashed as he returned it so it wasn't ITPD
28 of 30
Cont.
If someone is dishonest does it after whether they ITPD? If this is the case, it would lead to a conviction for LLOYD.
29 of 30
Conditional intent EASOM
D only ITPD if theres something worth taking. EASOM- D rummaged through a bag but didn't take anything, he was quashed as there was no evidence he ITPD. There are difficulties with conditional intent in Easom
30 of 30

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

'Any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner'

Back

Appropriation Section 3

Card 3

Front

Take it, sell it, destroy it, lend it out, hire it and consume it

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

D sold furniture belonging to another but it didn't leave the property, even though the owner wasn't deprived he was still appropriating the right of the owner.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

D switched supermarket labels and his conviction was upheld as he assumed the rights of the owner

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

Theft
titles
Theft
See all Law resources »See all theft resources »