Theft
MR - dishonestly, with the intention to permanently deprive
Theft Act 1968
AR - appropriation of property belonging to another
appropriation still happens when D has the property with the owners permission, but goes beyond that permission they have been granted
R v Morris [1983]
held that appropriation was not just physically taking the property, but can be achieved by doing any act that only the owner has the right to do (selling an item)
information is not property
property includes money, items and intangible objects
R v Hinks [2000] - Held that appropriation occurs even when the owners gifts the property to the D
D changed prices of items in supermarket. D charged with theft as appropriation did take place
a person who picks fruit from a plant growing wildly on any land for their own, non-commercial uses does not steal what he picks
wild creatures are regarded as property, but cannot be stolen unless it is in possession of another person
Oxford v Moss (1979) - student was held not guilty of theft after looking at contents of an exam paper
R v Turner [1971]
D, who owned the car, took it out of the garage after work had been completed from it, without paying. D was guilty of theft, despite it being his own property
when a person receives property by mistake, they have an obligation to return the property and it will be deemed as belonging to another , failing to return it will be classed as theft
dishonesty is judged subjectively and no requirement for the D's beliefs to be reasonably held
V does not need to actually be permentaly of their property, only D having the intention to permentaly deprivation
Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]
created a subjective test to judge dishonesty. States if D was aware of what was going on, based on the awareness on what normal people would view as dishonest.
If D believed that V would have consented, doesn't matter if a mistaken belief, is not dishonest