Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chapter 5: Theft: Belonging to Another - Coggle Diagram
Chapter 5: Theft: Belonging to Another
property must belong to another otherwise there can be no theft
.
common sense dictates that you cannot usually be convicted of stealing your own property.
however, the act makes it clear that it can belong to possessors as well as owners.
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having proprietary right or interest.
*S.5 (1) Theft Act 1968
this definition as including possessors, the prosecution doesn't have the problem of having to prove who the owner was.
the property can belong to someone who isn't the owner
when stealing property someone has hired/borrowed, the accused is stealing from them as well as the owner.
this principle can be useful for prosecutors when the owner cannot be traced.
it also means the accused can be convicted of stealing property from a possessor who has stolen it from the lawful owner.
an owner can steal his own property from someone else who has a greater right to possess it
Turner 1971
~a garage owner, who was repairing a car, parked it in the street overnight. the owner of the car then took it in order to avoid paying for the repairs. owner was convicted of theft of his own car because at the time that he drove it off, the garage had greater right to possess it.
property given to you by mistake still belongs to another
s.5 (4) Theft Act 1968
i.e. if you receive overpaid wages you have property belonging to another. if you're aware of this mistake and keep it then it could be theft as demonstrated in
Attorney General Ref (No.1 of 1983) (1985)
the same would apply to those who keep overpaid change.
Shadrokh v Cigari 1988
~ a bank error boosted the accused's account from 28,600 to 286,000. by spending much of this money, he'd appropriated property belonging to another.
exception
- there is no legal obligation to return overpayment of money won through betting.
Gilks 1972
(this is because betting transactions are not enforceable in civil law.)
Property given to you for a specified purpose still belongs to another
where a person receives property, and is under an obligation to retain and deal with that property or it proceeds in a particular way the property shall be regarded as belonging to another - S.5 (3) Theft Act 1968
Davidge v Bunnet 1984
~ some flatmates gave D money to go & pay the communal bills. D spent their money on xmas presents.
D argued that the money ceased to belong to another as soon as they gave it to her.
Appeal court said that because D was obliged to use the money or its proceeds for a particular purpose it still belonged to another and it was theft.
Wain 1996
~ accused collected money from the Telethon charity & put it into his bank account. he later withdrew that amount & spent it. this was theft because the property was regarded as still belonging to another (the donors)
Klineberg and Marsden 1999
~ Vs were led to believe that their money would be paid into a trust fund to buy timeshares in Lanzarote. Court ruled that the money still belonged to another because accused had been obliged to deal with it or its proceeds in the way that they had specified.
if there is no obligation to deal with the property in a specified way then the property does not belong to another and it is not theft
e.g. if a builder asks for a deposit before he starts work, it is not theft if he spends the money on something other than building materials.
if builder had specified that the deposit was to pay for materials or the travel agent had given the impression that he was going to use that money to book a holiday, then they would have been obliged to use it for that purpose & if they didn't then they would have appropriated property belonging to another
Hall 1973
~ client paid deposit on a holiday to a travel agent who later became bankrupt. the money hadn't been used to book flights but was simply put into the now bankrupt general account of the business.
CoA said that this was not theft because the agents were not obliged to use the deposit in any particular way. once given to them it ceased to belong to another.
illegitimate profits made at work may belong to another - the employer
AG Hong Kong v Reid 1993
however, there is a contradictory ruling in
Powell v McCrae 1977
~ an employee at Wembley let a ticket less man into the ground in return for a £2 which he pocketed. He wasn't convicted because it was said that in civil law an illegitimate profit did not belong to the employer.
lost property belongs to another
finding lost property and keeping it may be theft if you're dishonest
Hibbert v Mc Kernian 1948
~ accused collected golf balls that golfers had lost in the bushes and long grass. when he sold them he was convicted of theft
abandoned property does not belong to another
items left in skips, dustbins and refuse dumps may continue to belong to the owners of the skip etc.