Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Theft (Theft Act 1968 s1 - "A person is guilty of theft if he…

- - - - Property includes
        
        Money
        
        All other property
        
        Real or personal
        
        Real - S4(2) - provisions relating to real property - i.e. land and things attached to land
        
        S4(2)(b) - anyone not in possession of the land only steals if he severs it or causes it to be severed - subject to s4(3)
        
        S4(3) - a person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purposes
        
        3 more items...
        
        Including things in action and other intangible property
        
        Examples that do not amount to property
        
        Confidential information - Oxford v Moss - information in exam question paper - didn't take paper itself
        
        Electricity - Low v Blease - separate offence in Theft Act but we don't cover
  - - - S3(1) - any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation
        
        Can include appropriation of one right - R v Morris - don't need to assume all rights - just one - here switched prices on shop labels - stopped before paid - but one example of right of owner is to put relevant price on item - didn't have to buy
    - - R v Gomez - even if victim persuaded to consent, does not negate - morally neutral act
        
        "I regard the word 'appropriation' in isolation as being an objective description of the act done irrespective of the mental state of either the owner or the accused"
        
        Theft of "gifts" - R v Hinks - can be possible to steal a gift - carer persuaded patient to withdraw their money and give to them - court chose not to look at capacity to consent - instead said if all other elements present, can be theft
    - - S3(1) - second limb - "Appropriation... includes where he has come by the property [innocently or not] without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner"
        
        Also see R v Hale - continuous appropriation - this is just another example - can mostly use statute
    - - Transferred to D for value (paid for property), and
      - D is acting in good faith (no good faith if have fair idea that it may be stolen)
      - No theft occurs if D keeps, sells, gives away or throws away the item (not theft, even if find out stolen later)
        
        E.g. R v Adams
  - - - SS5(3) and (4) extend the meaning of "belonging to another" in certain cases where the property does not belong to another under s5(1) - with certain types of property, control ceases when handed over e.g. money
        
        Moynes v Cooper - asked for advance - later paid full wages and kept money - charged with old offence - court ruled not theft - at moment dishonesty could arise, the property didn't belong to another
    - - S5(1) - property is regarded as belonging to anyone with...
        
        Possession
        
        Control, or
        
        Any proprietary rights or interests
        
        Usually only need this section - only need one requirement - can steal own property - R v Turner (No 2) - car in garage - drove away without paying - was under their control
        
        Can belong to more than one person
      - "Abandoned property" - does it belong to anyone?
        
        Original owner? - is it really abandoned? - court reluctant to find
        
        Williams v Phillips - property in bin left out for collection - court held remained their property until taken away by the council - then theirs
        
        Hibbert v McKiernan - golf balls lost in lake - defendant retrieved to sell - not abandoned, just couldn't get to them - if had been retrieved and given back, likely to have claimed back
        
        Does it belong to the owner of the land on which it is found? - question of whether landowner intends to exert control over property found there - distinction between private land and public
        
        Private land - R v Woodman - owners of land had scrap metal merchants clear - then fenced off land showing intention to exert control - defendant came and took some that was left - still landowners' even though didn't know it was there
        
        Public land - Parker v British Airways - not a criminal case - Parker found jewellery in airport lounge - handed to British Airways who then sold - sued for compensation - court held was public land, albeit with limited access - airline showed no indication of exerting control over property - Parker had greater claim
        
        Several ways to show intention to control - signs etc.
    - - Does V hand over property to D?
      - Is an obligation on D to deal with the property (or its proceeds) in a particular way attached on handover?
      - If yes to both, for the purpose of theft, the property belongs to another
        
        R v Breaks & Huggan, R v Clowes (No 2)
        
        S5(3) does not create the obligation - only if obligation is found will it apply
        
        The decision as to whether there is an obligation is a matter of civil law - for the judge to determine - though jury might decide certain facts leading to the decision
        
        Commercial transactions
        
        Breaks - insurance broker - received money from clients for premiums and money from companies to pay - no obligation - allowed to keep and pay out only when had to
        
        Clowes - risky investments - inducement was that money would be dealt with in a certain way - obligation
        
        R v Hall - travel agent allowed to receive keep money and pay out only when had to - no obligation
        
        R v Klineberg and Marsden - timeshare - money to be held on trust until used - obligation
        
        Charity collections - R v Wain - obligation usually found to donor - expectation that will go straight to the charity, not used for other purposes in the meantime
        
        "Domestic" arrangements - Davidge v Bunnet - shared house - collected money from others for gas bill - used part of it for own purposes - obligation found - clear expectation - generally easier to find in domestic situations rather than commercial, surprisingly
    - - Did D receive property by another's mistake?
      - Is D under an obligation to restore the property (or its proceeds)?
      - If yes to both, for the purpose of theft, property belongs to another
        
        S5(4) does not create the obligation - only if obligation is found will it apply
        
        Establishing the obligation is a matter of the Law of Restitution and is for the judge to decide
        
        Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) - too much overtime paid - obligation to give back
        
        Not about mistake by losing etc. - only when full property rights now belong to recipients
      - Alternative approach - not requiring s5(4) - R v Shadrock-Cigari - guardian of child - too much paid into child's account - court said bank retained equitable interest - hard to say to what extent this applies - only use with cases of equitable interest and still mention s5(4)
- - - - S2(1) identifies three situations where D is not dishonest - negative definitions
        
        A person's appropriation of property belong to another is not to be regarded as dishonest
        
        a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a third person
        
        Ignorance of criminal law no excuse, but this is ignorance of civil law - key issue is whether jury believes them
        
        b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
        
        Hypothetical consent
        
        c) if he appropriate the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
        
        Does require defendant to actually try, just believe they couldn't if they did - ease of finding is a factor in believing them
        
        Appropriating "in the belief that..." - R v Robinson - requires only a genuine belief not a reasonable belief
      - Is for prosecution to prove lack of belief - these elements not working doesn't automatically prove dishonesty - where s2(1) does not apply, how do we define dishonesty?
        
        R v Feely - often no need to define - normal English word
        
        In difficult cases, judge could formerly direct jury using test from R v Ghosh
        
        Was D's behaviour dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people?
        
        If yes, did D realise that by those standards he was dishonest?
        
        Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (2017) - overrules Ghosh - new test - about whether D realise what they were doing - factual issue
        
        What was D's actual state of knowledge/belief as to the facts surrounding his actions?
        
        Once that state of mind is established, the question is whether his actions were dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
        
        Obiter - not criminal case and said didn't need dishonest to prove cheating here - but should still follow - DPP v Patterson (2017) - note Ivey test unanimous and unequivocal - technically bound by Ghosh but said difficult to imagine Court of Appeal preferring Ghosh - likely to be overruled
      - S2(2) - a person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property
  - - - A person appropriating property without meaning the other to lose the thing itself - where defendant thinks will or may get property back
        
        Nevertheless has the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights - all about treating as own to dispose of
        
        R v Cahill - "To deal with definitely; to get rid of; to get done with; finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell" - shorter OED - stole newspapers from newsagents to dump on friend's door as joke - no phrases in OED definition covered this - likely would get back
        
        R v Vinall - confirms Cahill
        
        Examples
        
        DPP v J - destroying
        
        R v Mitchell - no intention - stole car but left nearby
        
        R v Marshall - touted rail tickets - D argued would be back in rail company's possession by end of day - but sold
        
        R v Raphael - test drove car and drove off - ransomed back - treating as own to return
        
        R v Scott - stole curtains but took back for refund - treated as ransoming
        
        R v Fernandes - mortgage fraud - solicitor took out loans for clients to pay debt - planned to give back, but risked loss
      - Borrowing - second limb of s6(1) - a borrowing or lending of the property may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal
        
        R v Lloyd - took films from cinema he worked at to pirate - physically no change - "mere borrowing is never enough to constitute the necessary guilty mind unless the intention is to return the 'thing' in such a changed state that it can truly be said that all its goodness or virtue has gone" - value may have changed slightly but not deprived of all goodness
      - S6(2) - parting with property under a condition as to its return that D may not be able to perform - aka pawning