View mindmap
  • THEFT Act 1968- dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive
    • appropriation-any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
      • r v Morris - the defendant has to assume only one right of the owners
      • r v Pitham and hehl - appropriating the right to sell
      • Lawrence v MPC- even if the victim consents, there can still be an appropriationif the consent is not genuine
      • r v hinks- even accepting a valid gift can sometimes amount to appropriation
      • s3(1)- where d came by the property innocently but later assumes a right over it
    • s4(1)- property includes money, real, personal,things in action and intangible
      • r v welsh- bodily fluids such as urine can be property and can be stolen
      • r v KELLY AND LINDSAY- a corpse is not a property, however if they acquire vale like artistic value they made called as a property
      • Oxford v moss- knowledge is not a property
    • s5(1)-belonging  to another- possession or control of the property or proprietary interest in the property
      • r v turner-  even the legal owner is capable of stealing his own property if the possession is with someone else
      • Ricketts v basildon- if the property is not in possession of anyone then the last owner will still have legal rights over it
      • s5(3)- if d receives property and is under legal obligations to use it in a particular way, that property sill still be treated as belonging to the giver - davidge v Burnett
      • s5(4)- if d receives property by mistake and is under legal obligations to return it, the property will be treated as belonging to the party that made the mistake- att gen no 1 of 1983
    • s2- dishonesty
      • s2(1)(a)- d believes he has a legal right over the property- Robinson
      • s2(1)(b)- d believes the person whom it belongs to would've consented to the appropriation- holden
      • s2(1)(c)- d believes that the real owner can't be found- small
      • Ivey test- what did d believe at the time, did d believe his actions were dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people
        • r v barton and booth- Ivey test applies to criminal offences
    • s6(1)-intention to permanently deprive- treating the property as your own
      • DPP v lavender- even moving property that is not yours can be treating the property as your own
        • r v Easom- conditional intent doesn't amount to intent to permanently deprive
      • r v Warner- d can only intent to temporarily deprive v of his property
      • r v VELUMYL- money is always permanently depriving as you can't bring the same notes back
      • r v Lloyd - borrowing can amount to an intention to deprive when the goodness, virtue and value have been removed from the property


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »