3. Starter:What is theft?Is there a crime here? You find a lottery ticket on the floor... ... You pick it up and it wins £30,0000 You check your bank balance... ... And it reads £15,000 rather than £650 You see I’ve left the exam paper open on my desk... ... And you read it to find out the questions
4. A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it s.1 Theft Act 1968 Actus Reus Elements 1. 2. 3. Mens Rea Elements 1. 2.
5. Does V need to not consent? “an assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation and this includes where he has come by the property ...without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it.” s.3 Theft Act 1968Appropriation Lawrence What rights does this include? Morris Pitman & Hehl Morris Gomez Mazo Hinks Briggs
6. Things in action and intangible property Real or personal property and land R v Preddy 1996 s.4 Theft Act 1968Property What does the word ‘property’ mean? R v Kelly & Lindsay Animals Picking wild flowers & fruit
7. s.5 Theft Act 1968Belonging to Another (1) “Any possession or control of it or any proprietary interest or right”. 1. Who can be the ‘another’? 2. What if youare in possession, but don’t know it? 3. Can abandoned property be stolen?
8. How closely were you listening? Which of the following are ‘property’ under the law? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
9. So you legally hold the property...but do you have to do certain things with it? s.5(3) Obligation to use in particular way Davidge v Bunnett R v Hall R v Kleineberg & Marsden R v Wain s.5(4) Property acquired by mistake AGs Ref (No 1 of 1983) BUT R v Gilks The obligation must be a legal one, not just good faith!
10. As it’s Friday, a couple of riddles to get you thinking: Can a man marry his wife’s sister in Bedfordshire? A man kills his wife. Lots of people see him do it, yet he is never charged or convicted of murder.
11. Starter Can virtual theft have actualconsequences? Is it capable of being property?
13. The dishonesty test:R v Ghosh Note: This only arises if there is a concern over whether D was dishonest 1. Has D been dishonest by the standards of the ordinary, honest and reasonable person? 2. If the answer is yes, then did D realise that they were dishonest by those standards? Only if the answer to both these questions is yes can D be legally dishonest. Thinking: Was Mr Small dishonest?
14. A council door... From a skip to a flat. DPP v Lavender s.6 Theft Act 1968Intention to Permanently Deprive Money from a safe... Intending to replace that amount later. R v Velumyl How ‘permanent’ is ‘permanent’? How might you ‘dispose’ of property? Is using but returning intact enough? R v Lloyd & Others What if I only want something if there’s something good to steal? R v Easom
15. That’s theft! Quick test: match the section to the element, and the pictorial case clue! s.2 s.3 s.5 s.6 s.4 Intention to permanently deprive Property Appropriation Dishonesty Belonging to another
16. Dishonesty: A special problem? Is there such a thing? It is possible for the jury to think D was not dishonest, and thus be NG, even where D was dishonest by D’s own standards! Because it is left to the jury to decide, there are no precedents to show what kind of behaviour is dishonest within the Act “Reasonable & honest people” Lack of guidance “Ghosh test is complicated!” The subjective element of the test It’s difficult for the jury to understand and therefore lead to longer and more expensive trials, even if it is only brought up where the dishonesty is in question. This is designed to address the ‘honest mistake’ scenario, but can be easily argued and thus may result in far more appeals. The Law Commission is not much help as their response is that we live in a hetrodox and plural society
17. AO2: Evaluation ctd. This is interpreted very widely, only one right needs to be infringed, which means that shoplifters are guilty before leaving the shop, and even if D genuinely consents! ... It might be wide, but it is only one of the elements necessary. There are some things that can’t be stolen, and the law had stretched the meaning in establishing that sometime body parts can be property. This seems to be the most technical aspect of the law, and ignores the intentions or dishonesty of the defendant e.g. To return the money in Velymul. They take a wider meaning than belonging – covering others who may have a proprietary right or interest in the property. ... However there are some unfair exceptions (Gilks/ AG Ref) and it is arguable whether Turner No2sets a good example. ...however, the act provides a whole set of detailed rules on what can and cannot consitute property. ...in addition, the exclusion of the ‘conditional’ intent (Easom) is out of line with the law on burglary under the same act
18. For Next Monday (13D) and Tuesday (13B), Complete the grid to the right (it’s also on p20 of the Handout) Revise self-defence and consent for a DRAG test on Wednesday
