Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Theft - Coggle Diagram
Theft
Section 3: Appropriation
'If he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.'
- Similar property cannot be returned
R v Velumyl
- Risking the loss of another's property is treating it as your own to dispose of
R v Fernandos-
- 'Rights include' :
- Selling property
- Destroying it
- Consuming it
- Using it
- Hiring it
Pitham v Hehl- sold furniture
- As soon as theft takes places there is appropriation
Corcoran v Anderton- tugging hand bag was appropriation
- Appropriation can take place when consent is given
R v Lawrence- took more money that should have, taxi
R v Gomez- especially when consent is deceptive
-
- Even without deception consent is no automatic defence to appropriation
R v Hinks
Section 3: Appropriation
- Assuming one or more rights of the owner, consent is irrelevant
DPP v Gomez
- Can still be appropriation of there is consent
Lawrence v MPC
- Assuming one right is enough, especially if it is adverse to the owners wishes
R v Morris
- Offering to sell goods is appropriation
R v Pitham and Hehl
- Even a gift could amount to appropriation
R v Hinks
- Appropriation can be a continuing act
R v Hale- continuing act, does not matter if it was at the time of or immediately before
-
Section 4: Property
- Information is not property
Oxford v Moss
- Property does not apply to all things, eg a corpse
R v Sharp
- Property if it has a purpose
R v Kelly and Lindsay
- Intangible property (non-physical)
A G of Hong Know v Chan Nai-Keung
-
-
Section 2: Dishonesty
-
The Supreme Court abandoned the subjective limb of testing whether something was dishonest, R v Gosh
- Ivey v Genting Casinos, uprooted this making the test completely objective-
'Was conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?'
-