Law > Theft > Flashcards

Theft Flashcards

(60 cards)

Study These Flashcards
1
Q

How does section 1 theft act 1968 define theft?

A

“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it…”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Men’s rea of theft

A

“Dishonestly…intention”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How does section 3(1) define appropriation?

A

Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Cases for section 3 appropriation and what they do? (3)

A
  1. R v Morris (1983) - “Bundle of rights” (To sell, label, price.)
  2. Lawrence v MPC (1971) and R v Gomez (2000) - With/Without consent
  3. R v Hinks 2000 - Even if it’s a gift
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How does section 4 define property?

A

“Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Noteable things for section 4 property? (5)

A
  1. Real property (land, buildings, etc s.4(2)).
  2. Intangible property (copyright, patents, bank credits- R v Kohn 1979.).
  3. Chose (thing) in action’.
  4. Oxford v Moss (2003) – ‘information’ could not be stolen. (Exam papers)
  5. Things that cannot be stolen – s.4(3) and s.4(4).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What cannot (generally) be stolen?

A
  1. Land
  2. Wild animals
  3. Flowers & fruit
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What section shows land can’t be stolen and what are the exceptions?

A
  1. section 4(2)
  2. The defendant is a trustee or personal representative dealing with land dishonestly
  3. The defendant is not in possession of the land and dishonestly appropriates something attached to it
  4. The defendant severs something from the land (e.g. cuts down a tree) and steals it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What section says wild animals can’t be stolen and what are the exceptions?

A
  1. Section 4(4)
  2. Tamed
  3. Ordinarily in captivity
  4. Have been reduced into possession
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What section says flowers and fruit can’t be stolen and what is the exception?

A
  1. s4(3)
  2. For commercial sale
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

When is someone NOT dishonest under section 2? (3m)

A
  1. They have a legal right to the property
  2. If the owner would consent if they knew the situation
  3. The owner couldn’t be found, even after reasonable steps
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Section 2: Does being willing to pay make conduct honest automatically?

A

No.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the questions in the Ivey test?

A
  1. What were the defendants actual beliefs?
  2. Was their conduct dishonest by the standard of ordinary decent people?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the three cases in relation to the test for dishonesty under section 2?

A
  1. R v ghosh 1982 (criminal)
  2. Ivey v Genting Casino 2017 (Civil)
  3. R v Barton and Booth 2020 (criminal)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What happened in R v Ghosh 1982?

A

Court of appeal (binding precedent). Provided the test:
1. Has the defendant been dishonest by the standards of the ordinary, honest and reasonable person? (Objective)
2. If yes, did the defendant realise this dishonesty by those standards? (Subjective)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are the specifics of R v Barton and Booth 2020?

A

Court of Appeal. Took the test of Ivey from Lord Hughes Obiter:
1. What was the defendants actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts?
2. Was the defendant’s conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What does section 5 tell us?

A
  1. Property belongs to another if they have possession, control or a legal interest of it. Ownership is not required.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What are the situations of section five and what belongs to who?

A
  1. Trusts: property belongs to beneficiaries
  2. Obligations: money given for a specific purpose belongs to the giver
  3. Mistakes: money paid by mistake still belongs to the payer if there is a duty to return it
  4. Corporations: property still belongs to them even if a role is vacant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Cases for section 5

A
  1. R v Turner (No.2) (1971)
  2. R v Woodman (1974)
  3. Davidge v Bennet (1984)
  4. Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1983) [1985]
  5. Shadrokh-Cigari [1988]
  6. Williams v Phillips (1957)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What happened in R v Turner (No. 2) [1971]?

A

The defendant left his car at a garage for repairs. When it was ready, he used a spare key to take the car without paying for the work.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What happened in R v Woodman 1974?

A

A company sold scrap metal but left some behind on fenced private land. The defendant entered and took that leftover metal, believing it was abandoned.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What happened in Davidge v Bennett [1984]?

A

The defendant was given cheques by flatmates to pay a shared gas bill. She spent the money on other things instead.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What does Davidge v Bennett [1984] tell us?

A

Under s.5(3) — where someone receives property to deal with it in a particular way — the property is still treated as “belonging to another”. Since she was obliged to use the money to pay the bill, using it otherwise was theft.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What does R v woodman 1974 show us?

A

Property can still be “belonging to another” even if the owner doesn’t know it’s there — because the company still had control of the land and thus of the metal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What does R v Turner (no.2) 1971 show us?
This confirms that ownership is not required — possession or control is enough under s.5(1).
26
What happened in Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1983) [1985]?
A policewoman was mistakenly overpaid £74 in wages and later realised the error but did not notify her employer or return the money.
27
What does Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1983) [1985] show us?
Under s.5(4) — where property is received by mistake and there is an obligation to restore it — the property is treated as still belonging to the person entitled to it despite legal ownership having passed. Failing to make restoration can amount to theft.
28
What happened in Shadrokh-Cigari [1988]?
A guardian manipulated a bank error causing a large sum to be credited into a child’s account, then persuaded withdrawal and spent most of it.
29
What does Shadrokh-Cigari [1988] tell us?
The bank’s equitable interest in the funds meant the property still “belonged to another” under s.5(1), even though legal title might have passed temporarily.
30
What does Section 6 Intention to permanently deprive (IPD) tell us?
1. The defendant must intend that the owner will not get the property back. 2. Includes: Appropriation, selling, destroying, giving it away. 3. borrowing: theft if it’s so long that it’s equivalent to taking it permanently 4. Conditional return: If someone passes property on knowing they might not be able to return it -> can amount to IPD.
31
Cases for Section 6 IPD?
1. R v Velumyl [1989] 2. R v Lloyd [1985] 3. R v Warner (1970) 4. DPP v Lavender [1994] 5. R v Fernandes [1996] 6. R v Raphael [2008]
32
What happened in R v Velumyl [1989]
Velumyl took £1,050 in cash from his employer’s safe without permission, saying he intended to repay it later.
33
What does R v Velumyl [1989] tell us?
Even if someone intends to replace money later with the same amount, they still intended to permanently deprive the owner of the exact notes and coins taken. Replacing equivalent value doesn’t remove IPD.
34
What happened in R v Lloyd [1985]?
The defendant, who worked at a cinema, took films out so others could copy them, and then returned them in much the same condition.
35
What does R v Lloyd [1985] tell us?
Borrowing can still not be IPD if the property is returned with all its “goodness, virtue, and practical value” intact. Temporary deprivation isn’t enough unless those qualities are lost.
36
What happened in R v Warner (1970)?
The defendant took a toolbox to annoy the owner, later hid it, and claimed he hoped to return it later.
37
What does R v Warner (1970) tell us?
Claiming a future return doesn’t automatically mean IPD — the jury must judge whether the intention was really to treat the item as one’s own.
38
What happened in DPP v Lavender [1994]
The defendant took doors from one council house and fitted them to another property.
39
What does DPP v Lavender [1994] tell us?
Treating someone’s property as if it were your own to dispose of, especially by transferring it away from the owner’s use even without selling it, can be IPD under §6.
40
What happened in R v Fernandes [1996]
A solicitor transferred money from clients’ accounts, invested it, and lost it.
41
What does R v Fernandes [1996] tell us?
IPD can exist even where D claims intent to return property, if D deals with it in a way that risks its loss and treats it as their own regardless of the owner’s rights.
42
What happened in R v Raphael [2008]
Two defendants took a victim’s car, later offering to return it only after payment of a ransom.
43
What does R v Raphael [2008] tell us?
44
What is the maximum sentence for theft and what law is it under?
Section 7: 7 years imprisonment
45
What does section 3(1) definition of appropriation (“any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner”) also include?
where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it and appropriating it.
46
What two acts came after the theft act 1968 and what did they do?
Theft act 1978 updated the theft act and the theft (amendment) act 1996 updated both of these.
47
R v Williams 2001
Section 4 Property: D convicted of theft of credit balances in Vs bank accounts. He dishonestly tricked customers into overpaying him.
48
49
50
List the cases that show that cheques case problems in the law of theft.
1. R v Preddy 1996 2. MPC v Charles 1977 3. R v Hammond 1984
51
Why does R v Preddy 1996 show that cheques are a problem in the law of theft?
• Cheque was dishonestly induced causing a bank transfer • This was held to NOT be “property belonging to another” due to the money credited being new created by the bank • = Loophole
52
Why does MPC v Charles 1977 show that cheques are a problem for the law of theft?
Evaluated complex questions about whether cashing a cheque deceitfully was theft
53
Why does R v Hammond 1984 show that cheques may cause a problem in the law of theft?
Reasoning had to be stretched to fit with the statutory language under section 2 Theft Act 1978 for “deception”
54
EVALUATION: Cheques
NEGATIVE • Cheques causing bank transfers may not be classed as “property belonging to another” • Seen in R v Preddy 1996 • MPC v Lawrence 1977 • R v Hammond 1984 • Led directly to the Fraud Act 2006
55
EVALUATION: Suggestion of reform of law in relation to cheques
• Fraud Act 2006 now governs “deception” • Law Commission: “Legislating the Criminal Code: Misuse of Trade Secrets” 1997 said a singular offence for misuse of intangible interests should be made
56
2002 Report on theft act
Law Commission: “Fraud” (2002) (No. 276)
57
When was this made and what number?: Law Commission: “Fraud”
(No.276) in 2002
58
EVALUATION: Too many offences
• Argument of particularisation • 8 different deception-based offences (e.g obtaining property by deception) • DPP v Ray 1974
59
What happened in DPP v Ray 1974
• D ate at a restaurant and intended to pay • Changed his mind and left • HOL said his continued presence was a deception • Possibly twisting “deception”
60
EVALUATION: “Too many offences” Action
• Led to the Fraud Act 2006 • One offence of fraud
Law
flashcards
Decks in class (49)
# Cards
Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2026 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions