AR MR Appropriates: s73(4) Dishonestly S73(2) s.73(4) ‘any assumption of the rights of an owner s.72(3) Appropriation may be dishonest amounts to an appropriation’ notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for it s.73(5) protection of purchasing s.72(2) A person's appropriation is not to be s.73(10) – Theft by finding regarded as dishonest: Stein v Henshall-interfering with the rights of the • If he believes he has a legal right to deprive owner amounts to appropriation the other of it (bona fide claim of right) W v Woodrow- Passenger in stolen car also • If he believed he would have the other's appropriating Cf Morris action beyond authorisation (no consent) • If the owner cannot be discovered by taking amounts to appropriation reasonable steps. Consent to appropriate: Salvo, Brow, Bonollo - Any situations that fall VIC- only actions beyond authorization (consent) outside this provision must be dishonest (no amount to appropriations (as per Bauraday and residual meaning) Roffell) – appropriation must be w/o consent, RE Langham, belief need only be honest, not consent is a defence to appropriation see also reasonable Morris, though criticized in the UK (Lawrence and HD mention: In the UK, dishonest state of mind is a Gomez) where consent is not applicable to question for the jury Feely (UK), and according to appropriation. Gosh (UK), this question must be answered by ‘the ordinary standard of the reasonable honest person’. Property: s.71(1) “money, and all other property real or personal, including things in action and other tangible property’ Intent to permanently deprive Parsons cheques = property (‘things in action’) s.73(10) – receiving property by mistake and don’t HD MENTION: Parsons criticized and overruled UK return, you have IPD case of Preddy. s.73(12) – treat as own to dispose of, including Oxford v Moss – ‘intangible property is not borrowing in a way equivalent to an outright taking property’ e.g. confidential info Dardoska- s.73(12) ONLY applies in 3 situations… if Greenberg – contemporaneity and inextricable falls outside, not IPD; mixing. 1. The ‘ransom principle’ s73(6): land is property 2. The ‘essential quality principle s.73(7): wild creatures tamed or untamed are 3. The ‘pawning principle’: property s.73(13)- If someone lends you property and you Belonging to another lend it to someone else s.71(2) any person having possession or control of s.73(14) – theft of motor vehicles/ air crafts always it, or having any proprietary right or interest’ deemed IPD Turner – theft of own property (car from mechanic) Warner – “borrowing”- An to take goods Meredith No legal right to possession = not owner for a limited period only is not ‘equivalent to an outright taking or disposal’. Sharp v McCormick – Defence of “Borrowing” not

applicable if you assumed so much power and discretion over it. Lloyd- If intent is to temporarily deprive, no IPD

s.81 OPD AR MR Intent to permanently deprive s.81(4)(a) Deliberate or reckless, words or conduct, s.73(10) – receiving property by mistake and don’t as to fact of law, includes 3rd party, return, you have IPD S.81(4)(b)- act causing computer system to make a s.73(12) – treat as own to dispose of, including response that the person is not authorized to make borrowing in a way equivalent to an outright taking (entering PIN/PW) Dardoska- s.73(12) ONLY applies in 3 situations… if Gilmartin: deception by conduct (The presentation falls outside, not IPD; of a signed cheque) 1. The ‘ransom principle’ Ray- deception by silence (Open to criticism- HD 2. The ‘essential quality principle mention) 3. The ‘pawning principle’:

s.73(13)- If someone lends you property and you Obtains lend it to someone else s.81(2) ‘obtains ownership, possession of control of s.73(14) – theft of motor vehicles/ air crafts always it. Includes obtaining for another, and enabling deemed IPD another to obtain. Warner – “borrowing”- An intention to take goods s.81(3) must be a causal connection between for a limited period only is not ‘equivalent to an obtaining and deception outright taking or disposal’. Perera – causal connection Sharp v McCormick – Defence of “Borrowing” not Kovacs - It is not necessary to prove that the person applicable if you assumed so much power and deceived must suffer any loss discretion over it. Lambie- causal connection satisfied if person Lloyd- If intent is to temporarily deprive, no IPD deceived would not have proceeded with transaction if they had known D was acting dishonestly. Property: s.71(1) “money, and all other property real or Dishonestly S73(2) personal, including things in action and other S.73 only applies to theft not OPD (“appropriation tangible property’ is not dishonest in 3 situations”). Therefore, may be Parsons cheques = property (‘things in action’) residual meaning AKA circumstances outside of HD MENTION: Parsons criticized and overruled UK 73(2), which would entitle a defendant to acquittal case of Preddy. of OPD. Oxford v Moss – ‘intangible property is not Salvo, Brow, Bonollo - ‘’ = absence of property’ e.g. confidential info legal right to obtain the property Greenberg – contemporaneity and inextricable mixing. s73(6): land is property s.73(7): wild creatures tamed or untamed are property Belonging to another s.71(2) any person having possession or control of it, or having any proprietary right or interest’ Turner – theft of own property (car from mechanic) Meredith No legal right to possession = not owner

s.82 OFAD Prosecution must prove BRD that D, by deception, dishonestly obtained property belonging to another with IPD. AR MR Deception Dishonestly S73(2) s.81(4)(a) Deliberate or reckless, words or conduct, S.73 only applies to theft not OPD (“appropriation as to fact of law, includes 3rd party, is not dishonest in 3 situations”). Therefore, may be S.81(4)(b)- act causing computer system to make a residual meaning AKA circumstances outside of response that the person is not authorized to make 73(2), which would entitle a defendant to acquittal (entering PIN/PW) of OPD. Gilmartin: deception by conduct (The presentation Salvo, Brow, Bonollo - ‘dishonesty’ = absence of of a signed cheque) legal right to obtain the property Ray- deception by silence (Open to criticism- HD mention) Intent to permanently deprive s.73(10) – receiving property by mistake and don’t Obtains return, you have IPD s.81(2) ‘obtains ownership, possession of control of s.73(12) – treat as own to dispose of, including it. Includes obtaining for another, and enabling borrowing in a way equivalent to an outright taking another to obtain. Dardoska- s.73(12) ONLY applies in 3 situations… if s.81(3) must be a causal connection between falls outside, not IPD; obtaining and deception 1. The ‘ransom principle’ Perera – causal connection 2. The ‘essential quality principle Kovacs - It is not necessary to prove that the person 3. The ‘pawning principle’: deceived must suffer any loss Lambie- causal connection satisfied if person s.73(13)- If someone lends you property and you deceived would not have proceeded with lend it to someone else transaction if they had known D was acting s.73(14) – theft of motor vehicles/ air crafts always dishonestly. (Ask this question) deemed IPD Financial advantage Warner – “borrowing”- An intention to take goods E.g. services, credit, postponement of a debt, some for a limited period only is not ‘equivalent to an advantage or value falling to D falling outside outright taking or disposal’. “property” Sharp v McCormick – Defence of “Borrowing” not Vasic- Any deferment of payment of the debt applicable if you assumed so much power and amounts to a financial advantage discretion over it. Lloyd- If intent is to temporarily deprive, no IPD

s.75 Prosecution must prove BRD that D stole AND used force immediately before or during, OR put any person in fear of immediate force. (Theft + assault, (including ) AR MR Steals MR of theft (IPD and dishonestly) Langham Before or during In order to steal Hale- at any time Connecting purpose NB: Escape is still part of appropriation Uses force or puts another in fear of force MR of battery/assault R v Dawson: - Merest touching (a nudge) is sufficient of force.

s.75A Armed Robbery Prosecution must prove BRD that there was a robbery (see above) AND that D had with him ‘a firearm, imitation firearm, offensive weapon, explosive or imitation explosive’ AR MR Commits robbery Mental elements of robbery Already established- see above MR of theft and MR of assault/battery (see above) At the time of appropriation In order to steal Has with him No need to produce, so long as it was either - In his possession – custody or control - Accessible, and - For the purpose of the robbery A firearm/imitation firearm etc… s.77(1A) – "Explosive" any article manufactured for the purpose of producing a practical effect by explosion (or intended to have that purpose) "Imitation explosive" means any article which might reasonably be taken to be or to contain an explosive (Martine: could just be backpack) "Imitation firearm" means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not; "Offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or which the person having it with him or her intends or threatens to use for such a purpose.

s.76 Burglary Prosecution must prove BRD that D intentionally or recklessly entered a building etc… (or part of) as a trespasser, with the intent to (a) steal, (b) commit an assault, or (C) damage property AR MR Enter Intentional/ entry as trespasser D knew of the probability that he had no legal right or permission to enter property Collins: not trespassing if invited Barker: invitation is limited (to following the rules). Any entry unrelated/in excess of that would amount to a Building/part of a building/inhabited vehicle or Intent to steal, commit a serious assault, or vessel damage property Walkington - any separate section is ‘part of building’ (jury needs to decide) As a trespasser Collins: not trespassing if invited Barker: invitation is limited (to following rules)