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
AR s1 Theft Act 1968 meaning and analysis of "appropriation" (s3) including criticism of how the meaning has developed.
definition is extremely wide and not limited to simply taking property. Appropriation occurs in a variety of other situations such as destroying property or selling it.
"property" s4
includes money and all real or personal property, including things in action and other intangible property such as credit in bank account.
s5 "belonging to another"
must belong to another person at the time of appropriation. Anyone having possession or control of it or having a proprietary right or interest in it.
Lawrence v MPC (1972)
His conviction for theft was upheld. An appropriation can take place notwithstanding the consent of the owner.
R v Morris (1984)
Switching price labels in supermarket. D need not assume all of the owner's rights. Theft was committed at the moment that the labels were switched.
R v Gomez (1993)
Worthless cheque in payment for electrical goods. Ruled that an act may be an appropriation notwithstanding that it is done with the consent of the owner. D had therefore appropriated the goods when he supplied them to the fraudster.
R v Hinks (2000)
Upholding the conviction, the court held that a gift could be appropriation and that H had dishonestly acquired the money
R v Atakpu (1993)
Hired cars in Germany using false documents. Intended to bring to England to sell them. Appropriation occurred when the cars were hired in Germany. It could not be said that it was still continuing several days later when the defendants brought the cars to England to dispose of.
R v Abrahams (1993)
Hired cars in Germany using false documents. Intended to bring to England to sell them. Appropriation occurred when the cars were hired in Germany. It could not be said that it was still continuing several days later when the defendants brought the cars to England to dispose of.
R v Kelly (1998)
When a person applies lawful skill to a human body or part thereof which is in his lawful possession it acquires usefulness which distinguishes it from an interred corpse and that person therefore acquires a right to retain possession of it. Parts of a corpse are therefore capable of being property within the meaning of section 4 of the Theft Act 1968.
R v Turner (1971)
Theft of own property - car belonged to the repairer at the time D took it.
R v Hall (1973)
The defendant travel agent’s conviction for theft was quashed because although he had breached his contractual obligations to his clients and could be sued in respect of this breach, there had been no agreement that he should deal with the monies in a specific manner, and he was, therefore, under no obligation within section 5(3) Theft Act 1968.
A-G's Reference (no 1 of 1983) (1985)