This is a useful study sheet for Unit 5 of Criminal Law Module, on Theft and Fraud. It contains all the important information for this Unit in 9 pages, alongside exam structure and helpful tips. I used this in my open-book exam to attain a distinction.
The Court of Appeal accepted that there could be situations where the appropriation was a continuing one - in each case, the jury would
Outcomes:
be asked to apply its common sense as to when the appropriation ended.
1) Demonstrate a systematic knowledge and understanding of the criminal law relating to theft and appreciate the 3 ways in
In each case then the court will have to decide whether the theft was ‘instantaneous’ (i.e. over the instant that all elements of the
which the offence of fraud may be committed
definition are established) or continuous while the defendant is still engaged ‘on the job’.
2) Analyse the facts of increasingly complex factual scenarios relating to theft and fraud, identify the relevant legal issues and
Usually, it evaluate the impact ofbut
will be instantaneous, statute andiscase
if there law to reach
any doubt, reasonedofconclusions
it is a question fact for the jury to decide
The innocent
Theft (sectionpurchaser for value
1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 is an ‘either way’ offence and carries a maximum penalty of seven years’
imprisonment.
In exam: ‘X should be able to rely on section 3(2) of the TA 1968 to protect her from liability for theft’
Section 3(2)of
Actus Reus ofTheft
the TA 1968 makes it clear that you are not liable for theft if, when you acquired the goods, two major conditions apply:
a)
1) the transfer must
Appropriation be ‘forvery
- Usually value’ (i.e.
easy to you paid for
establish an itappropriation
in some way)
This need
Section notofnecessarily
3(1) be 1968:
the Theft Act moneyAppropriation
(i.e. could be is
anany
exchange of goods)
assumption of the rights of an owner
b) the purchaser
To appropriate you had to must have
usurp acted
only onein of‘good faith’rights
the many (i.e. you had
of an no doubts/concerns
owner about the
(R v Morris, approved transaction
in DPP v Gomez)and its legality, and
Appropriation is a you
believed
‘neutral’ word, thusthat
it isthe seller to
possible was acting entirely
appropriate, evenproperly)
where the property passed with the consent or authorisation of the owner (DPP v
Gomez; Lawrence v MPC)
E.g. if you bought the item for a price which you knew was considerably less than its true value, in circumstances which raised doubts in
your mind,J itC is
Professor certainly
Smith in hisarguable
commentarythat you were
in the not acting
‘Criminal Law in ‘good faith’
Review’ when
criticised youthe
that bought it Gomez reduced the actus reus of theft
case of
“almost to vanishing point”. In his opinion, the House of Lords could have confined its decision to the key fact that the consent of the
Note: If X sold the vase to someone else, she could be liable for an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 (fraud by false representation - that
owner had been obtained by a false representation
she is the owner) but she commits no offence of theft of the vase by keeping it (or indeed by selling it) as she falls within the s 3(2)
exception.)
R v Morris - Held: The act of switching the price labels amounted to an appropriation, as it was the owner’s right to decide at what price to
sell the goods
Note: X would not be able to rely on section 3(2) of the TA 1968 if the vase had been a gift and she subsequently discovered it belonged to
someone
Lawrence else.
v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - A foreign student, who did not speak English very well, took a taxi ride, the correct fare for
which should have been in the region of 50p. The student offered his wallet to pay, whereupon the defendant took £6. He was charged
She would not be a ‘purchaser’ as she was given the vase as a gift. She therefore has appropriated the vase under the second part of s 3(1),
with theft of the £6. The defendant’s act did amount to an appropriation
as she came by it innocently but later assumed the rights of an owner by keeping it (in the sense that she continued to exercise those
rights).
Appropriation and gifts
Note:
There It
canwould bean
still be theft only if the other
appropriation, evenfour
whenelements of been
there has the offence
a valid were
gift ofalso present
property to the defendant (R v Hinks)
Limitations
Actus Reusonofappropriation
Theft Land - There are only very limited circumstances in which land
Some limit on can be stolen. One generally cannot steal land, except in the
2) theProperty
extent of appropriation was introduced by R v Briggs
specific circumstances set out in section 4(2) of the TA 1968
It was held that there was no theft because the word ‘appropriation’
Property (section 4(1) of the TA 1968) includes money and all other connoted a physical act on the part of the defendant rather than a
more remote action that had triggered the payment in question Section 4(2)(a): Covers situations where someone owns the
property, real or personal, including things in action and other
land on trust for someone else
intangible
Briggs property.
had caused her relatives to perform an act in relation to their bank accounts. Her dishonest and deceptive conduct did not amount
to an appropriation, though she could now possibly be charged with an offence under - Examples:
the FraudOne joint owner of property who then
Act 2006.
- Money (any currency)
forges the other owner’s signature in order to sell the
It would- haveRealbeenproperty (land + things
an appropriation (viaattached/fixed
the innocent agencyto it. But
of a bank employee) if shelandhad
theyperformed it herself.
owned jointly She would
or executor of anhave been
estate
guilty of theftcircumstances in which
of a thing in action by land can bea right
assuming stolenofare
an actually
owner oververythe credit balance in their bank account
limited due to the provisions of s 4(2) of the TA 1968) Section 4(2)(b):
- Personal
Later assumptions of property
the rights(any tangible
of an ownerobject that is not real
property. Would even include prohibited drugs unlawfully in - Covers situations where someone not in possession of
Section 3(1) the
of the TA 1968 covers
complainant’s someone
possession (R who comes
v Smith, into possession
Plummer and of property legitimately but
the land (i.e. notlater
thedoes
owner something which
or a tenant) assumes
appropriates
the rights of Haines)
an owner. anything forming part of the land by severing it or
- Things in action (comprises property which you cannot causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed
Can you steal property more than once? No
touch/feel but is something you can enforce by a legal - Examples: Where someone goes on to the land and
action. E.g.
Once the defendant hascopyright,
stolen thecredit balance
property it with full mens rea) a chops
of a bank/building
(i.e. appropriated something of
later assumption down (e.g.
rights byahim
treewill
or not
bush), or to
amount
another theftsociety
of theaccount
property(Chan Man-sin v R), an overdraft facility
(R v Atakpu). removes something that has been severed (e.g. some
(Chan Man-sin v R) vegetables that the owner had just dug up)
R v Atakpu – The Ds were arrested for driving cars which had been hired abroad using false documents. Prosecution alleged that the Ds
Note: One
intended does not
to disguise commit
the identitytheft from
of the a bank
cars if hethem
and sell overdraws on hisThe DsSection
in England. 4(2)c): of conspiracy (an agreement) to steal
were convicted
own account without authority, because he had not assumed the
Held: All of
rights theanelements
owner overof theft had been
someone else’smade
thingout when the
in action (R v cars were hired. Any- laterCovers
Navvabi).
tenants
dealing who
with the take
cars something
could fixed
not found to the land
a charge of
which they are not supposed
theft or of conspiracy to steal because there could be no appropriation. The defendants had already stolen the cars (when they hired them) to take
andHowever,
any lateralthough
assumptionR v Navvabi
of rights suggests
could notthat oneappropriation
be an will not be guilty - Examples:
of Their convictions
for theft. weretenant, who leaves,
consequently takes with him a
quashed.
theft for the fraudulent use of one’s own account, there are offences structure or a fixture e.g. some shelving
under the Fraud Act 2006 which could be charged, and the bank could
S4(3) of the TA 1968 – provides specifically the circumstances in
take civil proceedings to recover outstanding monies
which wild plants/mushrooms/flowers/fruit/foliage from a
- Other intangible property (e.g. a patent or an application for plant are deemed to be property and can be stolen.
, Note: ‘wild’ plants are not property and cannot be stolen. Anything Wild Creatures
growing for commercial purposes/taken for commercial purposes/on
somebody else’s land = is stolen. Section 4(4) of the TA 1968 covers situations when wild
creatures may be stolen
E.g.: Deirdre has a fruit and vegetable stall in a London street market.
She picked the apples from trees in Paul’s orchard and picked the Examples:
mushrooms from a wood on land also owned by Paul. She is also 1) Hans breaks into the local zoo and takes a penguin.
selling bluebells picked from the wood and has uprooted some of the Wild creatures shall be regarded as property and
bluebell plants to put in her own garden. can be stolen when they are ordinarily kept in
She has appropriated all the items. The apples were clearly not captivity (section 4(4)), thus the penguin does
growing wild, so were property belonging to Paul. Presumably the amount to property.
mushrooms and bluebell flowers were wild and so s 4(3) gives 2) Hans goes onto Lord Loaded’s estate at night and
immunity from the crime of theft in respect of picking them. However, poaches three salmon from the river that runs
the immunity is lost if the picking (as here) is done for commercial through it. The salmon cannot be stolen contrary to
gain. As for the bluebell plants she uprooted, this is not done for s 1, because the salmon are neither tamed nor
commercial gain but it is not mere ‘picking’ (she has taken the whole ordinarily kept in captivity.
plant), so s 4(3) will not help her.
What else cannot be stolen?
Confidential information (Oxford v Moss) and electricity (Low v Blease) are not property and cannot be stolen
Oxford v Moss – The D read the examination paper that he was due to sit, then replaced it in the filing cabinet where he had found it. Not
theft of the actual paper because he had no intention to permanently deprive the university of that piece of paper. Held: The only thing he
could have ‘taken’ was the information on the paper. Confidential information was held not to be property and cannot be stolen.
Low v Blease - Electricity is not property, and therefore cannot be stolen. Note: Although it is not theft contrary to section 1 of the TA 1968,
there is a separate offence under section 13 of the TA 1968 that deals with unlawful extraction of electricity
Actus Reus of Theft Companies
3) Belonging to another Legally – a company is a separate legal entity
When considering whether the property belongs to another or not, it is This means the company can sue and be sued in its own right
important to remember the extended definition of ‘belonging to
If one of the company directors took some of the company
another’ under section 5(1) and that it potentially includes people other
assets, he would have stolen property ‘belonging to another’.
than the actual legal owner
The property belonged to the company
Examples:
This is so even if the people who took the property are the
- Under s 5(1), property also belongs to anyone who has sole shareholders in the company and therefore own it
possession or control of the property other than the owner completely
e.g. Barry lent his lawnmower to Mike, so if someone steals it,
Because the company is a separate legal entity, the property
he has stolen from both B and M
belongs to it and therefore falls within s 5(1)
- Under s5(1), property belongs to anyone who has a
proprietary right or interest in it e.g. If Anwar and Balbinder
hold property on trust for the benefit of Clare and Kay the Can you steal your own property?
property belongs to four people: Anwar and Balbinder are the
legal owners; and Clare and Kay are the beneficial or equitable One is able to steal his own property (R v Turner)
owners R v Turner - T took his car to B’s garage for repairs. B did the
- One legal owner can steal from another - E.g. If property is work and T then removed his car from the garage without
jointly owned (e.g. by a husband and wife or two partners in paying for the repairs. Held: The garage had a ‘lien’ - lawful for
business together), if the husband, or one of the partners, the garage to retain possession of the car until T has paid his
takes the property, he has stolen from the wife, or the other bill. B lawfully had possession or control of the car. T was
partner therefore guilty of theft by dishonestly removing it
The property must belong to another at the TIME of the dishonest The principle that a legal owner can be guilty of stealing his
appropriation own property (because it also belongs to another) is of
particular importance when considering:
all five elements
from of
boxthe offence must be established at the same time
(continuation above)
- Jointly owned property (e.g. partnership property)
The time to consider whether theand
property
fills upbelongs to another
petrol.isWhen
the he has done- so heLiability
Edwards v Ddin – D enters a garage his car with decidesregarding
he is nottheft
goingbytotrustees
pay and(legal
drivesowners)
off. of
moment
The Dthehasdefendant dishonestly appropriates the
Held: not appropriated property belonging toproperty trust property.
another. By the time there is a dishonest The property
appropriation, also belongs
the property to the
had already
passed to the
Edwards defendant, and the defendant has ownership, possession and control of thebeneficiaries
v Ddin
as they
petrol. The actus reushave an equitable
element interest
of belonging to in it
another did not co-exist with the mens rea elements of theft, thus the defendant was not guilty of theft. However, if the D had decided
before he entered the garage that he was not going to pay, the dishonest appropriation now occurs as soon as he starts to dispense the
petrol. He therefore does dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another.
There are clearly practical difficulties in proving when the D formed mens rea in these types of cases. Thus, as a fall-back provision, the
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller leila01. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.84. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
