Presentation on theme: "Found intheTheft Act 1968Found in the Theft Act 1968 Defined in Section 1, it is when D:Defined in Section 1, it is when D: “Dishonestly appropriates."— Presentation transcript:
Found intheTheft Act 1968Found in the Theft Act 1968 Defined in Section 1, it is when D:Defined in Section 1, it is when D: “Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with an intention to permanently deprive”“Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with an intention to permanently deprive”
To appropriate property belonging to another.To appropriate property belonging to another. Each part of this needs to be broken down and defined separately.Each part of this needs to be broken down and defined separately.
“Appropriate” Defined in section 3 of the Act “Any assumption of the rights of the owner, including treating it as your own and disposing of it. It also includes situations where D comes by property innocently”“Any assumption of the rights of the owner, including treating it as your own and disposing of it. It also includes situations where D comes by property innocently”
Appropriation can happen in lots of different ways…Appropriation can happen in lots of different ways… A lends a book to D. If D sells or gives the book to X,or destroys the book, D will have appropriated it, and may therefore be guilty of theft. Only A, the owner of the property, has the right to do those things and D would therefore be treating the book as if he owned it.
D who finds a book in the street, and later discovers that it belongs to his neighbour, A, decides to keep it, would also be within s3(1). D came by the property innocently and later assumes the rights of an owner.
But… Some protection is offered to the bona fide (in good faith) purchaser by s3(2):But… Some protection is offered to the bona fide (in good faith) purchaser by s3(2): A buys stolen property from D, unaware that it is stolen, and he pays for it, he will not be guilty of theft if he later discovers the truth and decides to keep the property;
R v Morris The court said appropriation is “any adverse interference with the owners rights” In this case, switching price labels was said to be “appropriation” (even though nothing was taken)
R v Lawrence A foreign student did not speak English and offered a taxi driver his wallet to take the money for his fare. The Taxi driver took far too much, and was charged with theft. The court said that even though V had consented to the appropriation, it was still theft because D had obtained the consent by deceiving V.
R v Gomez D worked in an electrical goods shop, and he allowed his accomplice to use fake cheques to obtain goods. Like, the case of Lawrence, The court said that even though V (the shop owner) had consented to the appropriation, it was still theft because D had obtained the consent by deceiving V.
R v Hinks A woman D was the carer of an older man of low intelligence, and persuaded him to make gifts to her totalling some £60 000. The jury convicted her of theft. The House of Lords said there can be an appropriation even where the victim gives the money voluntarily to the thief, if D was dishonest.
“Property” Defined in section 4 of the Act “Includes money and all other property, real or personal, including intangible property”“Includes money and all other property, real or personal, including intangible property” Does not include landDoes not include land Not wild plants, fruit or animals, unless taken for commercial purposes (or if the animals were in captivity)
Oxford v Moss A student D at Liverpool University obtained a copy of the examination paper he was due to sit. He was acquitted because information is not “property”, and D had not stolen the actual piece of paper itself.
R v Akhbar A teacher stole exam papers to pass the information on to her students. She was convicted of theft because she had stolen the actual piece of paper itself.
“Belonging to Another” Defined in section 5 of the Act It belongs to “..any person having ownership, possession or control or any other proprietary interest…”It belongs to “..any person having ownership, possession or control or any other proprietary interest…”
R v Turner D took his car to a garage for repairs, and told them he would return next day to pay for the repairs and collect the car. He came back and took it that evening using his spare set of keys.D took his car to a garage for repairs, and told them he would return next day to pay for the repairs and collect the car. He came back and took it that evening using his spare set of keys. He was convicted of theft. Even your own property can “belong to another” if there is an outstanding debt on it.
R v Davidge and Bunnett The defendant shared a flat with several other people who gave her cheques to pay for the gas bill. D spent the proceeds on Christmas presents and left the flat without giving notice. The court said that if property is given to you for a specific purpose, it still “belongs to another” and D cannot use it for any other purpose.
AG Ref no 1 of 1983 The defendant, a policewoman, was overpaid. The money was credited to her bank account as a result of an error by her employer. The court said she was under an obligation to repay it from the moment she realised. Where property is received by mistake, it still “belongs to another ”
R v Woodman D entered some disused premises to take some scrap metal, and was convicted of its theft. The court said that someone still controlled the site because they had erected fences and posted notices showed that they intended to exclude others from it.
Ownerless/abandoned Property The court is very reluctant to say property is ownerless. In Williams v Phillips The court said even the rubbish that people put outside their houses is not “ownerless”
Ownerless/abandoned Property continued… The court tends to ask Would the original owner have minded anyone else appropriating the property?
e.g…e.g… A leaves a newspaper he has finished reading on a train. B picks it up and takes It home C loses her engagement ring. D finds it and takes it home as a present for his girlfriend
Dishonesty, and an intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property.Dishonesty, and an intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Again, each part of this needs to be broken down and defined separately.Again, each part of this needs to be broken down and defined separately.
“Dishonesty” In section 2 of the Act Statute doesn’t define it but gives 3 situations when D will NOT be dishonest…Statute doesn’t define it but gives 3 situations when D will NOT be dishonest…
The 3 situations: S.2(1)(a) – When D believes he has a legal right to the property ( R v Robinson) S.2(1)(b) – When D believes he would have the owner’s consent to take the property ( R v Holden) S.2(1)(c) – When D finds something and believes he cannot trace the owner by taking reasonable steps. (R v Small)
R v Ghosh If the statute doesn’t help, this case gives us a 2 part test… 1.Would the reasonable man consider D’s conduct to be dishonest? 2. Did D realise this? If the answer is yes to both questions, D is “dishonest ”
“I.P.D.” In section 6 of the Act Statute doesn’t define it properly, so case law gives us guidance…Statute doesn’t define it properly, so case law gives us guidance…
R v Warner The defendant took a tool-box to annoy the owner but panicked and hid it when the police were called. He claimed that he intended to replace it as soon as he could do so undetected. The court said that even long-term or indefinite borrowing might not amount to IPD.
R v Velumyl A man D borrowed £1000 from the office safe without authority, intending to return the same amount when a friend repaid a debt. He was convicted of theft The court said that this was still intention to permanently deprive, because D was not replacing the exact same notes.
S.6(1) states that there may be an IPD even if D does not mean to permanently deprive the owner (i.e. where he is borrowing the property) if…
(a) D’s conduct amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights, and if this amounts to an “outright taking”. See R v Lavender . (b) D parts with the property under a condition as to it’s return, that he may not be able to perform.
R v Lloyd and R v Beecham These cases say that when something is borrowed and then returned, we should ask whether the value has been taken out of the property.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.