Criminal Law Theft

Criminal Law Theft The Theft Act 1968 was enacted to simplify the old law on offences against property. The basic definition in s1(1) Theft Act 1968 identifies the elements of the offence. The prosecution must prove all of the elements in order to secure a conviction for theft. You have to identify the main elements of potential theft offences in the question. ACTUS REUS s. 3 s. 4 s. 5 ‘Belonging to another’ s.2 Dishonesty s.6 Intention to deprive Appropriation Property The property must belong to Defined by the Ghosh test s.6 Intention to deprive .3(1) Theft Act 1968 In order to prove theft it must someone (s.5.1) [1982]. "Were the person's be established that the actions honest according to ‘The ‘narrow’ approach The definition of appropriation defendant has appropriated R v Woodman [1974] the standards of reasonable R v Warner [1971] raises three questions: property. Parker v British Airways and honest people?" and then R v Lloyd [1985] 1. What are the rights of the Board [1982] "Did the person concerned R v Cahill [1993] owner? Section 4 Theft Act 1968 believe that what he did was 2. Do all of them have to be defines what property may be Can one steal one’s own dishonest at the time?" The ‘wide’ approach assumed for appropriation to stolen. property? R v Scott [1987] take place? R v Turner [1971] BUT FIRST R v Lavender [1994] 3. Is there still appropriation of Generally, all property may be Negative aspect Chan Man-sin v A.G. for Hong the owner consents to stolen, although there are Property given to another for S.2(1) – …not dishonest Kong [1988] appropriation of the rights? certain exceptions in relation to a particular purpose appropriation if… In Lavender, the court referred land, things growing wild and Section 5(3) Theft Act 1968 (a) – if he appropriates the to Chan Man-Sin v AG of ‘Any assumption’ wild creatures. property in the belief that he Hong Hong as authority for R v Morris [1983] 3 All ER 288 R v Dyke and Munro [2002] has in law the right to deprive the proposition that “to Section 4 provides in part: R v Hall [1972] the other of it, on behalf of dispose of” included “dealing Consent and appropriation (1) ‘Property’ includes money Davidge v Bunnett [1984] himself or of a third party; with”. Lawrence v MPC [1971] 2 All and all other property, real or R v Wain [1995] (b) – if he appropriates the ER 1253 personal, including things in R v Breaks and Huggan property in the belief that he R v Marshall & Others [1998] action and other intangible [1998] would have the other’s 2 Cr App R 282 Theft of gifts property. R v Klineberg and Marsden consent if the other knew of R v Mazo [1997] 2 Cr App R (2) A person cannot steal land, [1999] the appropriation and the ‘Borrowing’ money 518 or things forming part of land circumstances of it; R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR R v Hinks [2000] 4 All ER 833 and severed from it by him or Property obtained by (c) – …if he appropriates the 299 by his directions, except in the another’s mistake property in the belief that the Is appropriation a continuing following cases… s. 5(4) Theft Act 1968 person to whom the property One of the classic mistakes in act? Moynes v Cooper [1956] belongs cannot be discovered the theft question is to assume Atakpu [1994] QB 69, CA Note that following the by taking reasonable steps that theft has not taken place decision in Oxford v Moss Section 5(4) will only operate because the property has The innocent purchaser (1979) 68 Cr. App. R. 183, where the accused receives Positive aspect been appropriated on a R v Adams [1993] Crim LR 72 information cannot fall within the property by mistake and temporary basis. The issue is the definition of intangible is under a legal obligation to R v Robinson [1977] Crim LR whether the intention to property contained in s4(1). return it to the person who 173 permanently deprived, e.g. by made the mistake. borrowing, is satisfied..

Load more