Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PROPERTY OFFENCES - Coggle Diagram
PROPERTY OFFENCES
-
THEFT
ACTUS REUS
1. 'Appropriation'
Theft Act 1968, s.3(1): 'any assumption by a person of rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation'/ 'assuming the rights of an owner'
- ownership rights is a bundle of rights; Morris (1964)
- appropriation can occur more than once but theft can only happen once; Atakpu (1994)
Appropriation can still be valid with consent; Lawrence (1972)
- D only needs to assume one of the rights , not all of them and the owner's consent is irrelevant; Gomez (1993)
Valid gifts can still amount to appropriation; Hinks (2001)
- Hinks argued that appropriation had become too easy to satisfy following Gomez
Criticism
- theft has become a really wide offence; it's now becoming a mind crime
- conflict between criminal and civil law
- fair labelling issue, as there's an overlap between theft and fraud
- theft by omission; Broome v Crowther (1984)
- s.3(2); you don't appropriate if you pay for something
- covers minor conduct, which allows for heavy burden on the element of dishonesty which is already problematic
2. 'Property'
Theft Act 1968, s.4(1): property includes money and all other property- real or personal property, including things in action and other tangible property
- real property = land
- personal property = all property that's not land, including illegal property
- things in action = non-physical property, i.e. credit system
A person cannot steal land, s.4(2)
Exceptions
- s.4(2)(a): trustee authorised to sell or dispose of trust land dishonestly authorising the disposal
- s.4(2)(b): a person with no rights to the land can steal anything forming part of that land
- s.4(2)(c): tenant that appropriates any fixture or structure
Cannot steal wild mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage, s.4(3)
- only applies for non-commercial reasons
Domestic animals can be stolen, but wild creatures cannot, s.4(4)
Exceptions
- the creature has been tamed/ kept in captivity
- creature has been reduced into the possession of another person
Common Law Exceptions
- Low v Blease (1975); electricity is not property
- Oxford v Mass (1978); confidential information is not theft
- services are not property; s.4(1) 1968 Act
- body parts and bodies are traditionally not property; Bentham (2005)
HOWEVER
Once a limb, organ or sample has been removed, it could fall within s. 4(1)
- Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust (2009)
- Welsh (1974)
3. 'Belonging to Another'
Theft Act 1968, s.5(1): 'property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any property right or interestAbandoned property doesn't belong to anyone and so cannot be stolen
Theft by owner can occur when he does not have the right to demand his property to be returned
'proprietary interest'
- Marshall (1998)
- a legal person (corporation) can own property; s.5(5)
Specific examples in s.5
- Trust; s.5(2) 1968 Act - property held on a trust is still belonging to another person
- It must be shown that D was obligated to deal with property in a particular way; s.5(3) 1968 Act ; Hall (1973)
- Obligation to make restoration; s.5(4) ; AG's Ref (No.1 of 1983) (1985)
Key Facts:
- previously called the Larceny Act 1916 but now the Theft Act 1968
Definition = 'a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'; Theft Act 1968 s.1(1)
- max sentence of 7 years
- conduct element
MENS REA
- ulterior mens rea
- borrowing without consent does not equate to theft
Intent to Permanently Deprive
D must intend to permanently deprive V of his property
Theft Act 1968, s.1(2) = 'immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit'Theft Act 1968, s.6(1) = extends the meaning of the phrase but does not necessarily define it
Borrowing for a period of time and in circumstances can make it equivalent to outright taking or disposal
- Lloyd (1985)It is no defence that similar property was to be returned
- Velumyl (1989)Conditional intention can be valid intention to permanently deprive
- Easom (1971)
- AG's Ref (No.1 and 2 of 1979) (1980)
'Dishonesty'
No statutory meaning of dishonesty; but given their ordinary meaning in Theft Act 1968, s.2(1)Main test for dishonesty
- s.2(1)(a) = D believed he had a legal right to the property
- s.2(1)(b) = D believed V would have consented to the appropriation
- s.2(1)(c) = D appropriates properly believing that the owner cannot be discovered
- value of the property should be considered when determining reasonableness
Dishonesty may occur in spite of D willing to pay for the property; s.2(2) 1968 ActTest for Dishonesty when D's conduct doesn't come under s.1
Ivey v Genting Casino (2017); Lord Hughes' test in para 74 - civil case
- What is the actual state of D's knowledge or belief as to the fact?; Hayes (2015)
- Were D's actions dishonest by the objective standards of the ordinary person?
The Ivey test was binding in criminal courts as well; R v Barton (2020)Old test = Ghosh (1982); was the conduct dishonest by objective standards? would D realise the ordinary person views the defendant's actions to be dishonest? Criticism
- definition of dishonesty as a conduct doesn't meet the standards of honesty and so provides no clearance
- assumes moral consistency among jurors
- Tamblyn in 'Reforming Theft: Taking Without Consent' suggests the core issue at the centre of mens rea should be consent