Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Requirements for liability for offences against property - LO4 AR and MR…
Requirements for liability for offences against property - LO4 AR and MR of theft
MR - meaning of "dishonestly"
remains a question of fact for the jury to decide
Defences s2
1968 Act does not define dishonesty
3 situations where a person is not dishonest
where he believes he has the right in law to deprive the owner of the property
where he believes that the owner would consent to the appropriation if he knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it.
where he believes that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
role and criticism of Ghosh Test
Hybrid test. First limb is objective and involves measuring D's conduct against an external standard. The second limb of the test is subjective and requires an assessment of D's state of mind.
Observations of the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (2017) in relation to Ghosh Test.
Confirmation by Supreme Court that Ivey test for dishonesty to be applied in Criminal Courts R V Barton & Booth (2020)
Significance of "dishonesty" as a result of judicial development of the meaning of "appropriation"
meaning of "intention to permanently depriving" s6
R v Ghosh (1982)
D was a dr acting as a locum consultant in a hospital. C of A dismissed appeal laid down 2 stage test.
jury must decide if D's behaviour was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If it was not he is guilty. 2. if his behaviour was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, D is nevertheless not dishonest unless he realised that this behaviour was dishonest by those standards.
R v Feely R v Coffey (1987)
First adopted the objective test was D's conduct reasonable by the standards of a reasonable and honest person? Rejected in Ghosh but re-established in Ivey.
R v Lloyd (1985)
Cinema projectionist borrowed films and gave them to someone to copy. "mere borrowing is never enough to constitute the necessary guilty mind unless the intention is to return the thing in such a changed state that it can truly be said that all its goodness or virtue has gone".
DPP v Lavender (1994)
Held that disposing of something included "dealing" with it.
Wheatley v Commissioner of Police for the Virgin Islands (2006)
R v Vinall and J (2011)
state of mind required where intention to permanently deprive namely intention to treat the thing as one's own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights.
DPP v Patterson (2017)
Directions based on Ghosh should no longer be given.