you dont have to assume all of the rights of the owner just some of them
2 of 18
Corcoran v Anderton
there is no requirement that the D gets away with the property
3 of 18
Lawrence (or Gomez)
consent is irrelevant to appropriation
4 of 18
Hinks
concent without deception (in relation to gifts)
5 of 18
Oxford v Moss
confidential information cannot be stolen
6 of 18
R v Turner
appropriation of property belonging to yourself
7 of 18
Woodman
it is possible to be in possesion and control even if you didnt know the property was there
8 of 18
Klineberg v Marsden (or Hall)
shows an obligation to deal with property in a certain way
9 of 18
Wain
when looking after money, they only have to return the same amount of money, it does not have to be returned in the same form, for example, if the money was given in pound coins it can be returned in notes so long as it is the same amount.
10 of 18
Holden
the right in law to permanently deprive, on behalf of himself or a third party
11 of 18
Small
belief that the original owner could not be found by taking reasonable steps
12 of 18
Ghosh
the test for dishonesty, was the act dishonest according to the standards of the reasonable and honest man, did the D realise it was dishonest according to those standards
13 of 18
Velumyl
a person can have intention to permanently deprive even if they intend to replace it later
14 of 18
DPP v Lavender
'dispose of' can also include 'dealing' with property
15 of 18
R v Lloyd
(borrowing and lending) if the value of the property is decreased then this can show intention to permanently deprive
16 of 18
Easom
conditional intent is not enough
17 of 18
Raphael and Another
if a D offers to sell the property back this is intention to permanently deprive
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
you dont have to assume all of the rights of the owner just some of them
Back
R v Morris
Card 3
Front
there is no requirement that the D gets away with the property
Comments
No comments have yet been made