Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
theft - Coggle Diagram
theft
actus reus
appropriation
-
Pitham and Hehl (1977) there is no need to show that the defendant had any physical contact with the property. the defendant doesn't have to assume all of the rights of the owner
-
gomez (1993) the offence is only committed when other elements of the offence including mens rea are present. there doesn't necessarily have to be an adverse inference with the rights of the owner
lawrence (1971); gomez (1993) you can still be guilty of theft even when the owner consents to the appropriation
-
-
property
contained in s.4 theft act 1968 'money and all other property, whether real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property
-
personal- all moveable property. wild animals cannot be stolen unless they have first been 'reduced into possession'
-
things in action- a right that can be enforced in law. mainly the right to the amount of money in bank accounts
-
-
-
belonging to another
defined in s.5 (1) theft act 1968 'property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control over it, or having any proprietary right or interest'
turner no.2 (1971) even if the property is the defendants it can belong to another if someone else has legal interest in it
woodman (1974) it is possible to be in possession or control of property even if they do not know it is there
r (on the application of RICKETTS) v basildon magistrates court only if property is truly abandoned will it not belong to another
webster (2006) 'a proprietary interest' occurs when the defendant owns the property and has control over it, but he can still steal it if another has proprietary interest in it
property received under obligation (earmarked). hall; davidge and bunnett 'ownership of a property does not transfer to the defendant if there is clear obligation to deal with the property in a particular way
property received by mistake. attorney generals reference (no1 of 1983)(1985) if a person receives property by mistake they could be guilty of theft if they have an 'obligation to make restoration' and don't do so
mens rea
dishonesty
the act does not define 'dishonesty' however s.2(1)(a-c) gives three situations where the defendant would not be dishonest providing they honestly believe this was the case (negative definiition)
small(1988);holden(1991)- it does not matter if this is an unreasonable belief, providing it is a genuine belief
-
(b) the defendant would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances
(c) the defendant believes that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
if the jury are not satisfied that any of the statutory situations apply, the judge will advise them to consider the ivey test (ivey v genting casinos ltd) which replaced the two part gosh test. they must be satisfied that the defendants conduct would be regarded as being dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people (objective test)
-
overview
defined in s.1 theft act 1968 as 'the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive