9176763
Description
Flashcards by Yasmine King, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Yasmine King
almost 7 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| R v Morris (case facts) | D took ham and replaced the price labels with other labels. He paid the lower price. He was convicted of theft. |
| R v Morris (legal principle) | Has to be proved that a defendant had assumed any of the rights of the owner |
| Lawrence v MPC (case facts) | Italian student offered his wallet for the taxi driver to take the far he owed. The driver took an excessive amount. This was an appropriation |
| Lawrence v MPC (legal principle) | Even if the victim consents there can still be an appropriation |
| R v Hinks (case facts) | D a carer accepted several gifts of large amounts of money and a TV |
| R v Hinks (legal principle) | Even accepting a valid gift can sometimes amount to an appropriation |
| R v Pitham and Hehl (case facts) | The defendants offered to sell v's furniture |
| R v Pitham and Hehl (legal principle) | Offering for sale and selling will be an appropriation |
| Kelly v Lindsay (case facts) | A sculptor took 40 heads, arms, legs, torsos etc. From the royal college of surgeons. He was convicted of theft. |
| Kelly v Lindsay (legal principle) | Generally a corpse is not property. The exception is where the body or body part has been altered in some way for the purpose of medical or scientific examination. Or they acquire educational or artistic value |
| R v Welsh (case facts) | D was accused of drink driving, he poured his own urine specimen down a sink |
| R v Welsh (legal principle) | Bodily fluids can be property if they come into the possession of another |
| Oxford v Moss (case facts) | D obtained a copy of an examination paper read it and then replaced it. He was found not guilty. |
| Oxford v Moss (legal principle) | Information/ knowledge is not property so cannot be stolen |
| R v Akbar (case facts) | A teacher admitted to stealing exam papers to help her pupils. She was convicted of theft |
| R v Turner (case facts) | Took his car into the garage to be repaired. He used his spare keys to take the car without paying. He was found guilty of stealing his own car |
| R v Turner (legal principle) | Even the legal owner of property is capable of stealing his own property if the property is in the 'possession' or 'control' of someone else |
| Williams v Phillips (case facts) | D's dustmen took items from bins. Saleable property was to be handed in. It was still the householders property until it became the property of the council |
| Williams v Phillips (legal principle) | Rubbish still belongs to the house holder until possession passes to council when the dustbins arrive |
| Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates (case facts) | Took bags of clothing from outside charity shops. The bags from oxfam were in their possess as they were placed in a designated space. The BHF ones were belonging to the original owner |
| Davidge v Burnett (case facts) | Guilty of theft when she was given money by her flat mates to pay the gas bill but used it to buy Christmas presents |
| Davidge v Burnett (legal principle) | If there is a legal obligation to deal with property in a particular way then it still belongs to another |
| Att. Gen (No 1 of 1983) (case facts) | A police constable was paid by electronic transfer. Her employers made a mistake and overpaid her |
| Att. Gen (No1 of 1983) (legal principle) | " If property is received by mistake and D is under a legal obligation to return it then it still belongs to another |
| R v Gilks (case facts) | D had placed a bet. he was paid too much prize money. He realised and decided not to return it. No legal obligation for gambling |
| R v Robinson (case facts) | D was owed money by v's partner. V dropped a £5 note which he took as part of the payment |
| R v Robinson (legal principle) | Section 2 (1) (a)- d is not dishonest if he believes he has the legal right to deprive the other of property |
| Holden (case facts) | D took tyres from his former employer. believed permission would have been granted if he asked. |
| Holden (legal principle) | Section 2 (1) (b)- he believes the other would have consented if they knew of it and its circumstances |
| Small (case facts) | D claimed the car he had appropriated was abandoned |
| Small (legal principle) | Section 2 (1) (c)- he believes the person to whom it belongs can't be discovered by reasonable steps |
| R v Ghosh (case facts) | A surgeon claimed fees not actually due to him |
| R v Ghosh (legal principle) | Two part test 1. Is D's conduct dishonest by ordinary standards of a reasonable and honest people 2. Is D aware that his conduct is considered dishonest by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people |
| DPP v Lavender (case facts) | A man switched two doors from council houses, amounted to intention to permanently deprive |
| R v Velumyl (case facts) | Borrowed £1000 from the office safe without authority intending to return the same amount |
| R v Warner (case facts) | Took and hid tools claimed he would have returned them after an hour, Only showed intention to temporarily deprive |
| R v Lloyd (case facts) | Copied films but returned them undamaged to his workplace |
| R v Lloyd (legal principle) | Can be intent to permanently deprive if 'goodness, virtue and value' have been removed |
| R v Easom (case facts) | Replaced the hand bag without stealing. Was looking to see if something was worth stealing |
| R v Easom (legal principle) | Conditional intent is not sufficient for theft |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.