Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Non-fraudulent offences - Theft (UK) - Coggle Diagram
Non-fraudulent offences - Theft (UK)
S.1(1) Theft Act (1968):
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
Actus Reus
Property - Section 4(1):
Property includes money and all other property, real or personal including things in action and other intangible properties
Section 4(2):
Property does not normally include land/things forming part of the land, like harvested crops/picked flowers. But there are situations where land can be stolen:
(a) when D is in
certain positions of trust
, and 'appropriates the land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him/her;
(b) when D is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it / causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed;
(c) when D in possession of land under a tenancy appropriates the whole / part of any fixture / structure let to be used with the land
Section 4(3):
A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit / foliage from a plant wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless
he does it for reward / for sale / other commercial purpose
'mushroom' includes any fungus and 'plant' includes any shrub or tree
Section 4(4):
Wild creatures, tamed / untamed, will be regarded as property; but a
person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity,
or the carcass fo any such creature, unless either it has been redcued into possession by / on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost / abandoned, / another person is in course of reducing it into possession
Appropriation - Section 3(1):
Means doing something with the property that the owner has a right to do, but which no one else has the right to do without the owner's permission.
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, includes where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner
R v Morris [1983]:
Supermarket label-swaps
Assuming any one of the owner's rights is sufficient to amount to appropriation.
Consent relevant - must be 'adverse interference'
Lawrence v MPC [1972]:
Facts: C (Italian student) spoke little English. Arriving in London, he climbed into a taxi showing the driver a piece of paper with an address of the family he was going to stay with. When he arrived, student gave a 1 pound note, but D said not enough. C (unfamiliar with English currency, gave wallet to D to take as much as he want. D convicted with theft and appealed that he was not appropriated the money as C consented to him taking it.
Held: Appeal rejected
R v Morris [1983]:
Facts: D took goods and switched the price labels with the cheaper products. He took them to checkout and was charged with lower price. Charged with theft, he argued that there's no appropriation because he had not assumed all the rights of the owner.
Held: HoL held that it wasn't necessary to assume all the rights of the owner, so long as at least one was assumed, appropriation will take place.
Appropriation can occur even when owner consents to D assuming right(s) in their property
R v Gomez [1993]:
D (assistant manager of a shop sells electric goods, Ballay wants to buy 17,000 pounds worth from the shop. He tendered some building society cheques but was actually stolen thus useless. D acted as Ballay's accomplice and pursuaded the shop manager to accept the cheques.
Issue: Whether appropriation can include acts permitted by the owner because Ballay has the owner's authority to take possession.
Held: HoL followed judgement in Lawrence, appropriation can take place even if the assumption of the owner rights took place with the owner's consent
Gifts:
Accepting gifts can amount to appropriation
R v Hinks [2000]:
Facts: C (with limited intelligence) was left money by his father. D befriended C and alleged by prosecution to have encouraged him to withdraw 60,000 pounds from his building society account and deposit into her account. D argued that money was either a gift/loan. D charged with theft and subsequent appeals rejected.
Held: HoL followed R v Gomez, treated 'appropriation' as covering any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner.
Belonging to another - Section 5:
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person
having possession / control of it or having it in any proprietary right / interest
(not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer / grant an interest
Owners can be liable for stealing their own goods
R v Turner [1971]:
Facts: D took his car to a garage to be repaired. When repairs were done, he saw car parked outside garage and drove away without paying.
Held: Liable for stealing his own car, because the garage had possession of the car at the time he took it, and all other elements of theft existed.
Lost Property - Section 5(3):
Where a person receives property from / on account of another and is under
an obligation
to the other to retain and deal with that property / its proceeds in a particular way, the property / proceeds will be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other
R v Hall [1973]:
Facts: A travel agent received money from clients for deposits for their holidays. He paid these monies into the general current account for the business. The business collapsed before he paid the money to book the holidays and the clients lost their deposits.
Held: Travela gent was not liable for theft as there was no obligation to deal with the money in a particular way under S.5(3) Theft Act 1968
Davidge v Burnett [1984]:
Facts: D received cheques from her flat mates to pay for the communal gas bill. D spent the money on Christmas presents and left the flat without paying the gas bill.
Held: D liable for theft under S.5(3) of the Act as the cheques gave her clear obligation to apply the money for payment of the gas bill
R v Wain [1995]:
Facts: D raised money for a company distributing money among charities. He paid what he raised into a special bank account and with consent of the compnay, into his own bank account. He then dishonestly dissipated the credit into his account.
Held: CA held that thereby appropriated property belonging to another as the jury were allowed to find that he was a trustee of the money collected and had therefore received it subject to an obligation to retain its proceeds (the successive bank accounts) and deal with them in a particular way (to hand them over to the company)
Receiving property by mistake - Section 5(4):
If a person receives property by mistake and has a legal obligation ot give it back, then for the purposes of the 1968 Act it will be treated as belonging to the original person who handed it over by mistake
So that failure to hand it back will count as appropriation.
AG's Reference (No.1 of 1983) [1984]:
Facts: A police officer receives an extra 74 pounds in her wages due to an accounting error by her employer and failed to alert anyone or give it back.
Held: CA held that this amounted to appropriation.
Mens Rea
Intention to permanently reprieve - Section 6(1):
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself;
is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as
his own
to dispose of regardless of the other's rights;
and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if,
the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it
equivalent
to an
outright taking or disposal.
Lawful possession but unable to return:
Mere borrowing is sufficient to constitute a theft.
R v Fernandes [1996]:
Whether D intended to 'treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights'.
Dishonestly risk loss of money
D must have the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property. The victim need not actually be deprived permanently of the property, so long as the prosecution can prove that D intended permanent deprivation.
Intention to return similar / different property:
Even if the person actually replaced the money, they can be treated as intending to deprive the shop permanently of the specific banknote that was removed
In such cases D may plead that they lack the other element of MR: dishonesty
R v Velumyl [1989]
Conditional intention:
A person has conditional intent where he/she intends to do something if certain conditions are satisfied.
R v Easom [1971]:
Facts: D was in a cinema where C placed her handbag on the floor. He picked up bag, intending to steal if there was anything worth taking. In fact there was only a few tissues + aspirin so he put it back. Unbeknownst to him the bag belonged to a policewoman and she was fully aware of him stealing.
Held: D was charged with theft but conviction quashed on grounds that he had no intention to permanently deprive C of any property.
Dishonesty - Section 2(1):
(a) If he appropriates property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a 3rd person; or
(b) If he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps
R v Ghosh [1982] - Ghosh Test:
Is it dishonest by standard of ordinary people
Did D realise it was regarded as such?