800782
THEFT (Theft Act 1968, s1(1))
- 1. Definition
- This is where a person dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention to
permanently deprive them of it
- This is where a person dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention to
permanently deprive them of it
- 2. Actus Reus
- s.3 Appropriate ( Assuming the right
of the owner) ( case study - Morris 1983,
Gomez 1993 )
- s.4 Property ( Money, coins, personal property,( R v
Smith)- e.g. movable items and body parts can amount
to theft, R v Kelly, real property, things in action e.g.
bank accounts, intangible property e.g. copy right. (
Case study - Oxford and Moss 1978, R v Velumyl
1989)
- s.5 Belonging to another ( case study - Turner 1971
- In this case it was held that you can steal your own
property) Case study -A-G ref No 1 of 1983 provides
that where a person receives property by mistake
and is under an obligation to return the property a
failure to restore the property will amount to theft
- Abandoned Property- If property is truly
abandoned it has no owner and anyone
who takes it will not be liable for theft.
Case study - Ricketts v Basildon
Magistrates [2010]
- Abandoned Property- If property is truly
abandoned it has no owner and anyone
who takes it will not be liable for theft.
Case study - Ricketts v Basildon
Magistrates [2010]
- s.5 Belonging to another ( case study - Turner 1971
- In this case it was held that you can steal your own
property) Case study -A-G ref No 1 of 1983 provides
that where a person receives property by mistake
and is under an obligation to return the property a
failure to restore the property will amount to theft
- Appropriation can take
place notwithstanding
the consent of the owner.
( Case study - Lawrence
1972, Gomez 1993
- s.4 Property ( Money, coins, personal property,( R v
Smith)- e.g. movable items and body parts can amount
to theft, R v Kelly, real property, things in action e.g.
bank accounts, intangible property e.g. copy right. (
Case study - Oxford and Moss 1978, R v Velumyl
1989)
- s.3 Appropriate ( Assuming the right
of the owner) ( case study - Morris 1983,
Gomez 1993 )
- 3. Mens Rea
- Dishonestly ( The Ghosh test combines
two tests, objective and subjective. 1) Was
what the defandent did dishonest according
to the standard of a reasonable and honest
person? 2) Would the defendant realise that
a reasnable and honest person would
regard what they did as honest?
- Intention to permanently
deprive the other of it. ( Case
studyy -R v Lloyd, R v
Lavender, R v Marshall
- Instantces where one is not
dishonest
- 1)if he appropriates the property
in the belief that he has in law the
right to deprive the other of it, on
behalf of himself or of a third
person. 2) 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. 3) if he
appropriates the property in the
belief that the person to whom the
property belongs cannot be
discovered by taking reasonable
steps. ( Case study - R v Holden
1991, R v Small 1987)
- 1)if he appropriates the property
in the belief that he has in law the
right to deprive the other of it, on
behalf of himself or of a third
person. 2) 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. 3) if he
appropriates the property in the
belief that the person to whom the
property belongs cannot be
discovered by taking reasonable
steps. ( Case study - R v Holden
1991, R v Small 1987)
- Intention to permanently
deprive the other of it. ( Case
studyy -R v Lloyd, R v
Lavender, R v Marshall
- Dishonestly ( The Ghosh test combines
two tests, objective and subjective. 1) Was
what the defandent did dishonest according
to the standard of a reasonable and honest
person? 2) Would the defendant realise that
a reasnable and honest person would
regard what they did as honest?
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.