Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Theft - Coggle Diagram

- - - - If there is sufficient balance in an owner's account or under an overdraft facility, the cheque is a chose in action
    - - The initial chose in action of a bank's account does not transfer to the borrower. It is extinguished in the bank's account and a new one forms in the borrower's account
    - - Information cannot be stolen
      - Trade secrets can't be stolen. This is a loophole in English law.
    - - Body parts are property when they acquire 'different attributes by virtue of application of skill, such as dissection or preservation techniques, for exhibition or teaching purposes'.
  - - - The car was in possession of the garage at the time it was taken by D. He was convicted of theft
    - - The back of ticket says it remained the property of the London Underground. Ds were convicted of theft
    - - Illegitimate profits belong to the employee
    - - He used money given for personal gain and not intended purpose. He was convicted of theft.
    - - Although organisers permitted D to transfer the money into his own account, he had a duty to retain the money until the bank encashed the cheque. D was convicted of theft.
    - - Overruled Lister. Illegitimate profits made by employees (e.g. bribe) belong to the employer
    - - Money was deposited into the agent's general account and there was no obligation to use the money a certain way thus no corresponding failure to do so. Agent was not guilty of theft.
    - - If a person receives property by mistake and has a legal obligation to give it back, the property is treated as 'belonging to another'.
    - - It is possible for someone to be in possession or control of property even if they don't know about it.
    - - Where goods are left for someone, they are property of the original owner until the new owner takes possession of it.
    - - Where D is in control or in possession of something, they can still be guilty of stealing it even if another person has proprietary interest in it.
  - - - D argued the student consented to him taking money out of the wallet but was still convicted of theft.
    - - Conflicts with Lawrence on the point of consent not being able to negate appropriation
    - - Appropriation includes the acceptance of a valid gift
      - Lords Hutton and Hobhouse dissented saying that the lower courts misinterpret Lawrence, Morris and Gomez. Rather than consent being irrelevant to appropriation, it is only relevant where the property was not obtained by fraud.
      - HoL refused to narrow the definition of appropriation as it puts criminals above the law
    - - Trial court: Convicted, Appeal: Overturned. The Reids caused the payment to be made by signing off on it even if the niece committed fraud.
    - - Overruled Morris on the point of consent. Appropriation occurs even if the assumption of the owner's rights happens with the owner's consent.
    - - Court of Appeal says either taking the bicycle or abandoning it can be considered appropriation
    - - Even if the owner wasn't deprived of the property, it is appropriation when the rights of the owner were assumed.
    - - Appropriation occurs the first time a person assumes the rights of an owner
- - - - (a) Belief that he has in law the right to deprive, for himself or a third person
        
        R v Robinson(1977)
      - (b) Belief that consent would be granted, if other knew the appropriation and the circumstances
        
        R v Holden(1991)
      - (c) Belief that the owner cannot be discovered using reasonable steps
        
        R v Small(1987)
    - - R v Ghosh (Ghosh test)
        
        D subjectively realises their actions would be objectively considered dishonest
      - R v Barton and Booth
        
        1) What is D's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts
        
        2) Is their conduct, based on their beliefs, dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
        
        Sample Application: a defendant travels on a bus in London without paying the fare. in his home country, transport is free. the court will have to determine whether he genuinely believed that buses in London were also free, and based on those beliefs, whether his actions would be considered dishonest by ordinary, decent people.
      - Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)
        
        D's actions are considered dishonest by standards of reasonable and honest people
  - - - R v Velumyl
    - - DPP v Lavender (1994)
    - - R v Easom
    - - R v Lloyd
- - - - Appropriation being regarded as occurring at one point in time
      - Being able to appropriate despite the owner's consent to the act
        
        Conflict in S5(3) and S5(4) in regarding property belonging to another
      - Conflict between civil and criminal law on gifts
        
        (Hinks) Lord Steyn: the monies given from the victim to the defendant were valid gifts in civil law, but it is an offence in criminal law
        
        The HoL in Hinks wanted to avoid the dilemma created in R v Preddy where actions which were openly dishonest (lying to obtain a mortgage) could not result in convictions due to technical loopholes.
      - The reliance on dishonesty to distinguish between innocent appropriations and appropriations which are theft
  - - - if someone dishonestly takes property belonging to another does it matter if they intend to permanently deprive?
        
        Lloyd (1985)
        
        where a film was copied and returned - no conviction as D only temporarily deprived the other of his property
        
        Easom (1971)
        
        D picked up a handbag but returned it because they did not find anything worth stealing.He was not convicted as he only 'temporarily' deprived the owner of the handbag
      - 'Conditional' intention to deprive
        
        In burglary conditional intention is sufficient to be guilty
- - - - S2(1): 'a person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest---'
        
        a) if he believes that he has in law the right to deprive the other of the property
        
        b) if he believes that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation
        
        c) if he believes that the person to whom the property belongs to cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
    - - S3(1): 'any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner, where he has come by the property innocently, any later assumption of rights by keeping with it as an owner'
    - - S4: 'money and all other property real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property'
        
        S4(1): 'land can be stolen'
        
        S4(2)
        
        a) breach of trust
        
        b) where the defendant is not in possession of land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it
        
        c) where a tenant appropriates the whole or any part of any fixture or structure on the land
        
        S4(3): 'any person who picks mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage growing wild does not steal what he picks unless it is for commercial purpose'
        
        S4(4): wild animals are property, but cannot be stolen unless they have been tamed. Anyone who takes a wild animal is not liable for theft, but poaching'
    - - S5(3): where an owner gives property to another to use in a particular way, ownership does not pass to the other.'
    - - S6: if the defendant treats the property as if it were his own to dispose of, that could amount to an intention to permanently deprive'