Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Theft: s1 Theft Act 1968: dishonest, appropriation of property belonging…
Theft: s1 Theft Act 1968: dishonest, appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive
-
S4: Property: All tangible property, intangible (intellectual), land, wild animals, plants and flowers.
Oxford v Moss: took exam, copied it and then returned it. CA held information couldn't be stolen.
-
R v Kelly: body parts could be stolen if they had acquired different attributes by the virtue of the skill or preservation for teaching purposes.
S5: belonging to another: having possession or control of it or having in it any proprietary right or interest.
R v Turner: D was at a garage and left without paying, garage had right of possession, committed theft.
Hibbert v Mckiernan: The owner of the land will have 'control' over the property lying on it- even if unaware of it.
Edwards v Ddin; didn't pay petrol, no conviction ownership of petrol passes when it enters the tank.
R v Basildon magistrates court: took bags from charity bin, argued were abandoned, charity shop had gained ownership.
S2: Dishonest: D believes he has a legal right, believes he has consent, believes owner cannot be traced following reasonable steps.
R v Ghosh (old test): was D dishonest according to ordinary standard if reasnonable person? was d aware his conduct would be regarded as dishonest.
Ivey v Genting casino: edge sorting cards to win money, only objective test didn't matter what d thought.
R v Feely: took money from safe claimed to replace day was down to jury to determined what dishonest was.
S6: intention to permanently deprive: doesn't have to actual be deprive permanently as long as d intended it.
R v Warner; took tool box to annoy owner, hid it when police arrived, return it undetected, not guilty on appeal
R v Velumyl: borrowed money intending to replace it after weekend, could replace with exact notes taken, was theft.
S6(1): borrowing can be intention to permanently deprive if he intends to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights.
R v Fernandes: solicitor invested money of client in another business. held d would be treated to intending to permanently deprive.
R v LLoyd: made illegal copies of cinema films, the returned them, held there was still virtue in the film and there was no reduction in value of them.
R v Marshall: sold previously used travel cards for cheaper price, was still depriving underground of money.