Term
| When you are discussing theft, what sections of the theft act can the D be guilty under? |
|
Definition
| The D can only ever be guilty under s1(1). All the other sections are merely explanatory... |
|
|
Term
| What are the different elements of theft? |
|
Definition
1) Appropriates - s3 (AR)
2) Property - s4 (AR)
3) Belonging to another - s5 (AR)
4) Dishonestly - s2 (MR)
5) With the intention of permanently depriving - s6 (MR) |
|
|
Term
| In order for there to be a theft under s1(1) Theft Act, what must happen w.r.t all the different elements of theft? |
|
Definition
| They must all occur AT THE SAME TIME. |
|
|
Term
| To steal something, is it necessary to actually remove it from the place you are taking it from? |
|
Definition
| NO - for appropriation, all you need to do is assume 1 of the rights of the owner. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
IN ORDER TO APPROPRIATE PROPERTY, IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO ASSUME 1 OF THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER.
HELD - changing labels on an item for sale = one of the rights of the owner = appropriation for the purposes of the Theft Act.
IT IS NOT NECESSAR THAT ALL OR MOST OF THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BE ASSUMES. |
|
|
Term
| In order to appropriate something for the purposes of s3(1) The Theft Act, what must you do? |
|
Definition
You must assume 1 of the rights of the owner.
Need not assume more than 1 of the rights, one is enough. |
|
|
Term
| R v Pitham and Hehl [1976] |
|
Definition
| OFFERING ANOTHER'S PROPERTY FOR SALE = ASSUMING ONE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER = APPROPRIATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF S3(1) THEFT ACT. (don't actually have to touch the property) |
|
|
Term
| Destroying or damaging property... could this = theft? |
|
Definition
YES - as the right to destroy/damage something = right of the owner. Therefore, if all the other elements of theft are there, can = theft.
This meas that, in a case of criminal damage, the D could also be done for theft. |
|
|
Term
| If you burn someone's books, what could you be done for? |
|
Definition
1) Criminal damage, if you meet all the elements
2) Theft - if you meet all the requirements for theft, even though there are no books left. |
|
|
Term
| What is the leading case on appropriation (for the purposes of s3(1) Theft Act [1968] |
|
Definition
| R v Morris [1983] - it is only necessary for ONE of the owner's rights to be appropriated. |
|
|
Term
| Can you 'appropriate' something with the owner's consent? |
|
Definition
R v Gomez -
YES - appropriate is an objective description of what is being done. e.g. the chair you are sitting on, you have appropriated. However, in order for there to be a theft, you must satisfy all of the other elements of theft. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
APPROPRIATE IS AN OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE ACT THAT IS BEING DONE. THEREFORE, WHENEVER YOU TOUCH/DO SOMETHING WITH PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER, YOU APPROPRIATING IT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THEFT ACT. IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE A THEFT, ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE THEFT ACT MUST BE SATISFIED.
THEREFORE, IF SOMEONE GIVES YOU PERMISSION TO TAKE SOMETHING OF THERES, UNBEKNOWNST TO THEM, THAT YOU PLAN ON STEALING IT, YOU CAN STILL BE GUILTY OF THEFT, IF ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THEFT ARE THERE. |
|
|
Term
| If someone consent's to you taking somethingm, will you have appropriated it within the meaning of the Theft Act? |
|
Definition
| YES - appropriation = an objective description of what you are doing. it is only where the other elements of theft are there that you can = guilty of theft. |
|
|
Term
| Since Gomez, every time you go into a shop & pick up a sandwich with the intention of buying, what will you have done? |
|
Definition
You will have satisfied 4 of the elements of theft.
1) Picking up the sandwich = right of the owner = appropriation
2) Property = sandwich
3) Belonging to another = belongs to shop
4) With the intention to permanently depriVe.
HOWEVER, AS THERE IS NO DISHONESTY INVOLVED, YOU WILL NOT BE GUILTY OF THEFT. |
|
|
Term
| Why has R v Gomez been heavily criticised? |
|
Definition
| Because of the emphasis it puts on dishonesty. Also, the implications it has for gifts e.g. if you receive a gift, and you're not completely honest in receiving it, you could be guilty of theft (e.g. tell your boyfriend you love them when you don't, and then they give you a gift). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
IT IS POSSIBLE TO STEAL A GIFT. FOLLOWING THE 'APPROPRIATION' RULE IN GOMEZ (WHERE YOU CAN APPROPRIATE WITH THE OWNERS CONSENT), IF YOU APRROPRIATE WITH DISHONESTY = THEFT.
D became friendly with a 53yr old man with a low IQ.
D convinced the man to give her his money as a gift
Every day they would go to the building society and he would withdraw the maximum amount
This carried on for 200 days.
When arrested, D argued that it was a valid gift
HELD - HoL followed Gomez, and therefore, D had appropriated the property + the other elements of theft were there (property, belonging to another, ITPD, and dishonesty). |
|
|
Term
| Is it possible to appropriate something twice? |
|
Definition
YES - every time you assume one of the rights of the owner, you are appropriating it. s3(1) TA
This allows for a situation where you come by something innocently, e.g. a watch your friend has stolen & you plab on returning it, but later decide to keep it. When you first come by it, you pick it up = appropriation, but not MR (no dishonesty/ITPD)
However, when you decide to keep it as your own = another of the rights of the owner, therefore = appropriation + the MR will be there (ITPD & Dishonesty). |
|
|
Term
| Is it possible to have a continuing appropriation? |
|
Definition
| YES - R v Hale [1978] - it is possible to have a continuing appropriation. The appropriation can continue for as long as the jury decides the D is still in the act of appropriating. This is particularly useful for things like robbery and burglary, where the D has to be in a particular location when the appropriation happens. However, w.r.t theft, it is much easier to rely on simply s3(1) appropriation (at the point / later appropriation), as w.r.t the the R v Hale continuing appropriation, it is up to the jury to decide. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CONTINUING APPROPRIATION. IT IS UP TO THE JURY TO DECIDE THE POINT AT WHICH THE D IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF APPROPRIATING.
Discussed more w.r.t burglary and robbery. |
|
|
Term
| What does s3(2) Theft Act provide? |
|
Definition
| It provides a defence for the innocent purchaser. Where someone purchases stolen property, but doesn't know it is property & acts in good faith... if they later discover it is stolen property, they cannot be convicted of theft for continuing to hold on to the rights that they already thought they had acquired. HOWEVER, if they then decide to sell the property, they can be convicted of fraud, because the right to sell = another right of the owner, and this appropriation will occur after the person knows that the item is stolen. |
|
|
Term
| s3(2) Theft Act = defence for innocent purchaser... |
|
Definition
| Where 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 have already acquired at the time of purchase, shall amount to theft of the property. |
|
|
Term
| Which part of the Theft Act defines the AR element of 'belonging to another'? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| According to s5(1) Theft Act, under what circumstances will property be regarded as belonging to someone? |
|
Definition
| Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having it in any proprietary right or interest. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
OWNER CAN STEAL HIS OWN PROPERTY IF IT IS IN THE POSSESSION / UNDER THE CONTROL OF ANOTHER (= PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER BECAUSE THEY HAVE POSSESSION OF IT).
D took his car to the garage for repairs
However, D decided that he didn't want to pay for the repairs.
Therefore, D took his spare keys and took the car
HELD - D was guilty of theft, as the garage was in possession of the car, and by way of s5(1), the car therefore belonged to them. |
|
|
Term
| According to s5(1) Theft Act, if you are not the owner of something, but you have possession of it, does it belong to you? |
|
Definition
| YES - Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having it in any proprietary right or interest. |
|
|
Term
| In what circumstances may property, which doesn't belong to you, not belong to another either? |
|
Definition
| Where the property has been abandoned. HOWEVER, courts = very reluctant to find that property has been abandoned = VERY HARD. Just because someone has given up looking for something, doesn't mean that they have abandoned it. |
|
|
Term
| In an exam, if you are trying to determine whether property has been abandoned, what should you consider? |
|
Definition
| Look at it as a question fact, based on the circumstances. e.g. a football left in a park, probably = abandoned. Whereas, an engagement ring, unlikely abandoned, just because you've given up looking for it, doesn't mean that it has been abandoned. |
|
|
Term
| Williams v Phillips [1957] |
|
Definition
JUST BECAUSE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAS NO FURTHER USE FOR IT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE HAS ABANDONED THE PROPERTY
D went through the dustbins
HELD - owner who leaves rubbish outside has not abandoned it, instead, he intends for it to go into possession of the council, until that point, it remains his property. Therefore, D= liable for therft. |
|
|
Term
| According to s5(1) TA, under what circumstances does property belong to another? |
|
Definition
1) Where they hold proprietary right or interest in it
2) Where it is in their possession
3) Where it is under their control |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
SOMEONE CAN = IN CONTROL OF PROPERTY EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT IS THERE.
IN THIS CASE, THE PEOPLE WHO HAD CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY HAD TAKEN MEAUSRES TO SHOW THEIR CONTROL OVER THEIR LAND E.G. BY PUTTING UP FENCE TO EXCLUDE TRESSPASSERS
D purchased some scrap metal
D accidentally left some of the scrap metal behind
D went back to retrieve it (whilst the scrap metal yard was closed)
HELD = theft, as the property was under control of the scrap metal yard. Scrap metal yard had taken measures to show that property within their property/land was under their control. |
|
|
Term
| Parker v British Airways Board [1982] |
|
Definition
LAND CASE, HOWEVER = USEFUL BECAUSE COURT DISCUSSES DIFFERENT SCENARIOS IN WHICH THE OWNER OF PROPERTY/LAND EXERCISES CONTROL OVER THINGS ON/IN THEIR PROPERTY
1) In this case, BA hadn't expressed an intention to exercise control over items found in the 1st class lounge... as = open to the public & no signs
2) OBITER - items found in a house would clearly be under the control of the home owner
3) Items found in a public park, to which the public had free access = park owner not in control of items, UNLESS, park owner put up posters expressing that he was |
|
|
Term
| Parker v British Airways Board [1982] - ON ABANDONMENT |
|
Definition
In this case, a gold bracelet found in a 1st class lounge was held to = abandoned...
1) Owner would have flown to another country & left it
2) = 1st class, so owner probably = really wealthy |
|
|
Term
| What kind of scenario does s5(3) Theft Act cover? |
|
Definition
Where X gives something (e.g. money) to Y, and Y is placed under a LEGAL obligation to deal with the money in a certain way (e.g. pay gas bill). For the purposes of the theft act, the property still belongs to X (therefore = belonging to another).
If it is found that Y was not under a LEGAL obligation, the ownership would pass to Y, and therefore, property would belong to Y (and there could be no theft) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
WHERE X GIVES Y PROPERTY AND Y IS PLACED UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY IN A PARTICULAR WAY, THE PROPERTY IS HELD AS STILL BELONGING TO X
D = given money (by investors) to invest in government stock
D didn't use it for investing in stock, invested it elsewhere
HELD - because D was under an obligation to deal with the money in a certain way, the money still belonged to the person who had given it to him. Therefore, for the purpose of the theft act, D = guilty of theft. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
WHERE X GIVES Y PROPERTY AND Y IS PLACED UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY IN A PARTICULAR WAY, THE PROPERTY IS HELD AS STILL BELONGING TO X
D shared a flat with 3 other poeple
C was given money by housemates to pay for the gas bill
C spent the money on xmas presents instead
HELD - because D = under legal obligation to deal with the money in a particular way, therefore, by virtue of s5(3) TA, the money belonged to another. D = guilty of theft. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
S5(3) = LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY IN A CERTAIN WAY, OR LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DEAL WITH THE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY IN A CERTAIN WAY... BOTH FALL WITHIN S5(3), AND BOTH WILL THEREFORE = PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER.
D held a disco on behalf of a charity, using the charity's property etc. to run the event
D raised £2,800
D kept the money
HELD - D was under an obligation to deal with the proceeds in a certainw ay, therefore = belonging to another = theft. |
|
|
Term
| In order for s5(3) Theft Act to work, the person who is given the property must be placed under a LEGAL obligation to deal with the property in a certainw ay. In what cituations will a person be placed under a LEGAL obligation, and in what circumstances will the obligation not be legal? |
|
Definition
It is up to the judge and jury to decide.
KEY question = 'was there an obligation to retain and deal with the property in a particular way? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
CASE IN WHICH THE COURT HELD THE D WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION OF THE TYPE THAT HE WAS ACCUSED OF BEING UNDER
D = travel agent who had received money for flights from customers
D went bankrupt
D hadn't booked the flights yet
D's dobtors took all his money.
ARGUMENT = D was udner a legal obligation to place the money into trusts in order to protect it from bankruptcy
HELD - D was not under a legal obligation to put the money into trusts. Therefore, D = not guilty of theft
D was under a contractual obligation to provide flights, however he was not under a contractual obligation to put the money into trusts. Had he been under a contractual obligation, the courts probably would have found that a legal obligation arose. |
|
|
Term
| R v Klinberg & Marsden [1999] |
|
Definition
CASE IN WHICH THE COURT HELD THAT THE D WAS UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DEAL WITH PROPERTY IN A CERTAIN WAY (BECAUSE HE HAD CONTRACTED WITH THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY THAT HE WOULD DEAL WITH IT IN THAT WAY)
D = selling timeshares (for a 3rd party)
D told customers that he would take their money and hold it on trust for them until the timeshares were ready
D did not hold money on trust, instead, he kept it in with his own money.
D went bankrupt
HELD - the D was under a legal obligation to put the money into a trust, as he had contracted to do so & had told them that he would do that. |
|
|
Term
| s5(3)... if X gives Y property to and tells Y he has to do something specific with it, under what circumstances will Y be liable for theft, if Y doesn't deal with the property as directed to by X |
|
Definition
| Where it is found that Y was under a LEGAL obligation to deal with the property as directed by X |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) Property given by mistake
+
2) An obligation to make restoration
=
s5(4) operates so that the property is regarded as belonging to the person entitled to restoration
THEREFORE...
an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to permanently deprive that person of the property or the proceeds |
|
|
Term
| If you are given too much money by mistake, under what circumstances will an obligation to make restoration arise? |
|
Definition
ALWAYS!!! If you are given too much money by mistake, you are ALWAYS under an obligation to give it back
(when you find it and keep it = appropriation, as decision to keep = decision of the owner, therefore = assumed a right of the owner)
(note if you don't give it back, not necessarily theft, as need to consider dishonesty) |
|
|
Term
| If you have a question in an exam which relies on s5(4) TA, what will it always concern? |
|
Definition
| MONEY - as if you are given too much money, you are ALWAYS under an obligation to give it back. Other property = more complicated, therefore, in an exam it will always be too much money that is given. |
|
|
Term
| What are the different ways in which you can give money by mistake? |
|
Definition
1) If you think that it is due, therefore you intentionally give it
2) If you don't realise you're giving it, e.g. 2 £10 notes stuck together |
|
|
Term
| Given that there are two ways in which someone can mistakenly give money to someone. In what circumstances would s5(4) apply? |
|
Definition
| Where the person giving the money erroneously beileves that the person is due the money. (e.g. advancement on wages & then you also get the full amount of wages at a later date) |
|
|
Term
| If someone gives you change, and mistakenly hands you 2 £10 stuck together, would you rely on s5(4)TA? |
|
Definition
| NO - s5(4) TA ONLY applies where the person who gives you the extra money intentionally does so, in the mistaken belief that you are owed it. If someone doesn't intentionally give you the money, and instead it's a mistake because e.g. notes were stuck together, you would rely on s5(1), as the person who mistakenly hands it over, retains an equitable interest in the property. |
|
|
Term
| What are the steps for assessing a case in which someone is under the mistaken belief that someone is due money, and so gives it to them? |
|
Definition
1) s5(4) Theft Act
AND THEN...
2) Chase Manhatten Bank v Israel-British Bank (London) [1981]
... therefore, the D has money belonging to another by virtue of s5(4) AND s5(1) |
|
|
Term
| Chase Manhatten Bank v Israel-British Bank (London) [1981] |
|
Definition
IF SOMEONE MISTAKENLY GIVES YOU MONEY, BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT YOU ARE OWED/DUE THAT MONEY, THE PERSON WHO GIVES IT MISTAKENLY RETAINS AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN IT, AND THEREFORE, BY VIRTUE OF S5(1) THEFT ACT, IT IS PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER.
(NOTE - in a question where you use this, you must also refer to s5(4) FIRST) |
|
|
Term
| w.r.t certain types of property, why is it important to know when ownership passes? |
|
Definition
Because, in order for there to be theft, all the AR and MR must occur at the same time. However, with certain types of property, full ownership will pass to you earlier than with other type of properly. Therefore, if after appropriating it (and acquiring full legal & equitable title to it) you then decide to steal it, the 'later appropriation' rule wont apply to you (because it already belongs to you), and you can't then be convicted of theft.
Once the legal and equitable title have passed to you, however, the property then belongs to you.
e.g. you walk in to a shop & pick up a book. Ten minutes later, you decide that you're going to steal it = later appropriation = ok for theft.
HOWEVER,
You go to a petrol station & fill up your tank. AS SOON AS YOU FILL UP YOUR TANK, THE LEGAL AND EQUITABLE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY PASS TO YOU... THEREFORE, IF YOU THEN DECIDE TO RUN OFF WITHOUT PAYING = NOT THEFT, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY BELONGS TO YOU. THEREFORE, FOR PETROL = SEPARATE OFFENCE OF MAKING OFF WITHOUT PAYMENT. |
|
|
Term
| W.r.t petrol, when does ownership pass? |
|
Definition
| It passes as soon as it is put in to your petrol tank. This is because once it goes in to your petrol tank, it mixes with old petrol & dirt etc. and it is no longer of any use to the petrol station owner. Therefore, it fully belongs to you. If after filling up your tank, you decide that you are going to run off with it, the later appropriation rule can't apply to you, because you already own it. |
|
|
Term
| With most items, at what point does ownership pass? |
|
Definition
| When the property is paid for. This means that the 'later appropriation' rule can apply, as you can pick something up (and appropriate it), and then 10mins later decide to run off with it (=right of owner to take, = not your property yet, = later appropriation). |
|
|
Term
| If you decide before you fill your car with petrol that you aren't going to pay for it, what offence will it be? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| If, after filling your car with petrol, you decide that you are going to run off without paying, what offence will it be? |
|
Definition
| Making off without payment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| OWNERSHIP OF PETROL PASSES WHEN IT IS PUT IN TO THE CUSTOMERS TANK. THEREFORE, IF YOU DECIDE AFTER YOU HAVE FILLED UP YOUR TANK THAT YOU AREN'T GOING TO PAY, YOU WILL NOT BE GUILTY OF THEFT, AS LATER APPROPRIATION RULE WONT APPLY, BECAUSE THE ITEM FULLY BELONGS TO YOU. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
DINERS IN A RESTAURANT CANNOT STEAL THE FOOD IN THEIR STOMACHS. (ALSO, ONCE IT IS IN STOMACH, IT IS NO LONGER PROPERTY)
OWNERSHIP OF FOOD PASSES WHEN THE BUYER STARTS EATING IT (OR POSSIBLY EVEN AS SOON AS THE FOOD BEGINS TO BE PREPARED). THEREFORE, IF YOU DECIDE AFTER YOU HAVE STARTED EATING IT THAT YOU AREN'T GOING TO PAY, YOU WILL NOT BE GUILTY OF THEFT, AS LATER APPROPRIATION RULE WONT APPLY, BECAUSE THE ITEM FULLY BELONGS TO YOU. |
|
|
Term
| At what point does ownership of food pass? |
|
Definition
| Once you begin eating it (or possibly even as soon as it starts being prepared). Therefore, if after eating you decide to run off without paying, you cannot be guilty of theft, because later appropriation rule wont apply, because food already belongs to you. |
|
|
Term
| According to s5 Theft Act, what are the different circumstances in which property can belong to another? |
|
Definition
1) Where they hold proprietary right or interest in it (if 2 £10 stuck together given by mistake, giver retains equitable interest in them)
2) Where it is in their possession
3) Where it is under their control
5) Where it is mistakenly given to you, under the erroneous belief that you are owed it + you are under a duty to make restoration
6) Where it is given to you for the purpose of dealing with it in a particular way + a legal obligation arises for you to deal with it in that way. |
|
|
Term
| Do poachers on anothers land steal the animals they poach? |
|
Definition
| NO - not if they're wild animals. s4(4) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| electricity can NOT be stolen. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
confidential information can NOT be stolen
D broke in to university office, took out an exam paper, read the questions and then put it out
HELD - confidential information can not be stolen.
w.r.t the paper/exam sheet, he had appropriated it, however he didn't have the ITPD (as he put it back) |
|
|
Term
| Which bits of s4 TA deal with what types of property? |
|
Definition
s4(1) - General
s4(2) - Land
s4(3) - Things growing on land
s4(4) - wild creatures |
|
|
