Class notes
Lecture notes on Theft in Criminal Law
- Course
- Institution
Lecture notes of 6 pages for the course Criminal Law at University of the West of England (Theft)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
luciegreen47
Content preview
Definition: Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 defines ‘theft’
‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’
Elements of the offence:
Dishonestly (S2)
Appropriation (S3)
Property (S4)
Belonging to another (S5)
Permanently deprive (S6)
The AR is S3, 4 and 5
The MR is S2 and S6
Appropriation:
Set out in S3(1)
‘Any assumption by a person of the right of an owner amounts to an
appropriation, and this 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.’
Morris [1984]
‘It is enough for the prosecution if they have proved...the assumption of any of
the rights of the owner of the goods in question’ (Lord Roskill)
Academics have since criticised the ease of finding appropriation
Leigh anecdote
If X kicks my camel, he surely does not appropriate it. The notion of
assumption must surely involve a taking unto oneself or denial of the owners
right or title to a thing for the benefit of another’
Appropriation can take place even with the consent of the owner
Lawrence v MPC [1972]
Student and taxi driver
Language barrier
The passenger couldn’t understand how much so he showed him his wallet
and gestured to take how much he owed
He took more than he owed
He argued that he consented to it so it wasn’t theft
The judge said that it was and that appropriation could take place with
consent
Gomez [1993]
Convinced boss to sell items to friends
Cheques were worthless
Said he consented to the sale but again, consent doesn’t mean their wasn’t
an appropriation
Rader [1992]
Stated the same as above cases
Receipt of a Gift as Appropriation:
This can amount to appropriation
R v Mazo [1997]
, Maid was given things including 37k of of cheques by employer
Employer was not in the correct mental state to give money
Wasn’t found to be appropriation
Hopkins and Kendrick [1997]
Women in a care home, not of mental capacity
Found there was an appropriation even if it was given to her
Change in law in the same year
Hinks [2000]
Gift can be appropriation
A lot of disagreements between judges
Women received a lot of money and gifts from a man who wasn’t of mental
capacity
3:2 majority on the HL judgment that it was an appropriation even if it was a
gift
The dissenting judgment stated it was immoral not illegal
In CL even after the money is transferred it can be an offence however in civil law it
wouldn’t be considered after the money has been transferred
Bona fide purchasers is an exception (S3(2))
If you don’t know it is stolen when you buy/use it it cannot be appropriation
Wheeler [1991]
Stall holder sold something that was stolen (watch) but purchaser didn’t know
it was stolen so is wasn’t theft
Adams [1993]
Same point with motorcycle parts
Property:
S4(1) provides that ‘property includes money and all other property, real or personal,
including things in action and other intangible property’
Chan Man-sin v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988]
This was a case of banks and a theft of debt
This was a theft of a thing in action
Other intangible property is also part of property and can include things like quota’s
AG of Hong Kong v Chan Nai Keung [1987]
In this case textile quotas were sold at a gross undervalue
This was classed as intangible property
Exceptions to Property:
Confidential information
Oxford v Moss [1979] was a case where stealing exam papers and returning
them wasn’t considered property so it couldn’t be theft
Electricity
Low v Blease [1975] was a case where they took electricity but this wasn’t
considered theft
Dealt with in S13 of Theft Act
Body parts
Sharpe [1857] stated that a corpse isn’t property
R v Kelly [1999] was a case where a student stole body parts from a college
of surgeons for art purposes and this was considered theft as they had
acquired the status of ‘property’ when being used for educational/exhibition
purposes
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 luciegreen47. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.04. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75323 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now