Samenvatting
Summary Criminal Law - Property Offences
- Vak
- Instelling
includes burglary, robbery and criminal damage. gives you cases and analysis.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 5 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 5 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
gesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
fgms
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
PROPERTYPlea bargain – if you plead guilty, you will be able to negotiate a lower sentence
THEFT:
s 1(1) The 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; and ‘thief’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed
accordingly.
Burglary and robbery are often charged together with theft.
AR: (a) in the appropriation of (b) property (c) belonging to another.
APPROPRIATION:
Defined under s3 the Theft Act 1968:
1.Any assumption by a person of the rights 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.
2.Where property, or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in
good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any
defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property. (= bona fide purchaser exception)
Appropriation = widely interpreted in itself an innocent act
Assuming the rights of the owner:
Morris 1984: D switched labels on supermarket goods to buy it for cheaper price. Proceeded to checkout
and paid the lower price. Convicted of theft. – confirms that any assumption of any one property right
will be sufficient to find appropriation.
- Confirmed in Gomez 1993
Appropriation with consent:
Lawrence 1972: D, taxi driver, took extra money from V for a fare. V didn’t speak English and ‘allowed’
the extra money to be taken. HOL held that this was appropriation, it didn’t matter that V consented - the
consent or non-consent of V is irrelevant, but Morris had said the contrary: ‘adverse
appropriation’
Gomez: D was assistant manager of shop. He convicted manager to allow customer to pay using cheques
that D knew were stolen. Manager consented. D was convicted of theft. COA appeal allowed – Morris
establishes that the consent of V undermines appropriation. HL resolves this inconsistency by allowing
appeal and reaffirming liability by following Lawrence. – establishes that D could, by deception, appropriate
V’s property regardless of V’s consent.
Hinks 2000: D befriended V, described by court as naïve, limited intelligence, over 6 months, she took V to
his building society almost every day and given £300, totalling £60,000. Convicted of theft. – appropriation
could be found despite a lack of deception – where D assumes ownership rights from V with full
title
Almost any dealing with property can amount to appropriation: Taking possession, momentary control
(Corcoran v Anderton (1980) – bag grab), Appropriation by a person already in possession… or by a
person who never possesses
No appropriation - Atakpu 1994: Ds hired expensive cars in Germany and drove them to England where they
intended to sell them; however, although they were arrested in UK their convictions for conspiracy to steal was
quashed by COA as the act of appropriation had taken place in G, which was the first time they had assumed the
rights of owner and therefore they had not been conspiring to steal in England.
COA did however state that in some situations, appropriation can be a continuing act provided
that the thief is still ‘on the job’.
Bona Fide purchaser exception
S3(2) Theft Act 1968: Where property, or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for
value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be
acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.
Creates an exception where no appropriation will be found where D purchases property in good
faith (bona fide), believing that she is gaining full civil title, it then transpires that full title hasn’t
been transferred, but D continues to treat the item as her own. – assumed the rights of the owner,
but exception means no appropriation.
Exception only applies where D purchases property – gifts don’t count.
PROPERTY
, s4(1) the Theft Act 1968 provides definition of property: ‘“Property” includes money and all other
property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’.
Real property – reference to land – subject to exclusions
Personal property – all property that is not land, includes illegal or prohibited items – EG: drugs.
Things in action – category of intangible property where D has right to sue another, most commonly bank
accounts.
Other intangible property – extends the definition of intangible property to extend beyond the most common
things in action.
EXCEPTIONS: s4(2)-(4)
1. Land: s4(2) – where D takes V’s land without severing it, she may have appropriated property
within civil law, but this won’t constitute property for the purpose of theft.
- s4(2)(a): allows theft by a trustee of property
- s4(2)(b): allows theft by D who serves part of that land, as long as D doesn’t possess tights of
ownership – EG: children of a tenant
- s4(2)(c): allows theft of land by a tenant who appropriates a fixture or structure from the land.
2. Wild mushrooms and flowers: s4(3)
3. Wild creatures: s4(4)
Other common law Exceptions:
4. Electricity: s13 - Not property but has a special offence
5. Confidential Information: Oxford v Moss 1979: uni student unlawfully acquired an exam paper, read
and returned it, no theft - exam info/trade secret etc. is not property but paper is
6. Services: Failure to pay for a service is not theft (Fraud offence)
7. Bodies: Kelly 1998: a corpse is not property unless it’s embalmed or otherwise treated.
- However, bodily products can amount to property – EG: sperm, urine, blood
BELONGING TO ANOTHER:
s5(1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having any
proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant
an interest).
‘Possession or control’:
Rostron 2003: D & others trespassed on golf course and took lost balls. Convicted of theft. Although the
club didn’t intend to go find the balls, they still had ‘possession and control’
Turner (No 2) 1971: took his own car while it was under repair at garage: garage had a lien over it.
Because he hadn’t paid for it, at the time belonged to the garage. – garage had ‘possession and control’ of the
car
‘Proprietary interest’:
Marshall 1998: reselling used tube tickets. London underground Ltd (v) claimed ownership of tickets.
Making D resell them an appropriation of their property.
Waverly BC v Fletcher 1995: Gold broach found on council land belonged to council – property
belonged to the Crown if it comes within the rules of ‘treasure’
Williams v Phillips 1957: one does not ‘abandon’ rubbish to be collected
R (on the application of Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates' Court 2010: clothes left outside
charity shop still owned by V.
Specific examples within s5:
s5(2): clarifies where D, a trustee, dishonestly appropriates from that trust, she take property from
another.
s5(3): states: Where a person receives property from or on account of another and is under an obligation to
the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds
shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other. – deals with property given to D for a
particular purpose - EG: where V provides D with money to buy cleaning products. – in such cases, even
though property was given to D, if she deals with it in an inappropriate manner (keeps it) – this will
constitute taking the property of another
Hall 1972: D paid travel deposits into firm’s general account which was used up. Breach of civil contract
found but no theft. NOW might fall under s5(3) following Wain 1995.
s5(4): applies where D receives property by mistake and is under the obligation to return it or its
value
Gresham 2003: D continued to receive deceased mother’s pension for 10 years
Shadrok-Cigari 1988: when the bank makes an (over) payment by mistake, the money ‘belongs
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper fgms. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,73. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 56326 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen