Law 04 Property Theft

S3(1) Theft Act 1968 - Defines appropriation as 'any assumption of the rights of an owner'

Pitham and Hehl - The right to sell as one of the rights of the owner, it does not matter if the property is actually old, offering to sell is enough 

Morris - Assumption can be any of the rights of an owner, it does not need to be of all the rights 

Corcoran v Anderton - Even forcibly tugging a handbag can be an assumption of the rights of an owner 

Morris - Switching lables meant there must be an adverse interference with the owner's rights but this was changed in Gomez 

Gomez - House of Lords said there does not need to be an adverse interference for an assumption to occur 

Lawrence - Even if owner consents there can still be appropriation 

Hinks - Confrimed that appropriation can occur when consent, or in this case, a 'gift' is given 

S.3(1)- Appropriation can occur even if item is found innocently if it is later 'dealt with as an owner' 

S4(1) of Theft Act - Defined property as 'money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property'

S.4(2) - Real property is land, this can be stolen in 3 ways: 1) By a trustee in breach of their duty, 2) By taking something from the land, 3) By ta tenant taking a structure from the land 

Kelly and Lindsay - Personal property is a material item, body parts are property if they are treated 

-Things in action can only be enforced by a court action, eg cheques, trademarks, tickets for a right of enterance 

AG of Hong Kong v Chan Nai - Keung - Intangible property includes lyrics and bank balances, eg a quota being stolen 

Oxford v Moss - Questions on an exam paper were not propety 

S.4(3) - Wild mushrroms and plants are not property unless used for 'reward, sale or other commercial purpose' 

S.4(4) - Excludes wild creatures from being property unless they have been tamed or kept in captivity 

S5(1) of Theft Act 1968 - Defined belonging to another as 'any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propriety right or interest'

Turner - D canb steal their own property if it is under someone elses control and they have legal interest in it 

Woodman - It is possible to control or possess property without knowing the property is there, though they had control of it 

S.5(3) - Situations where there is an obligation to deal with property in a certain way 

Davidge v Burnett - Theft occured when money that was given to pay bills was used to buy Christmas presents instead 

Klienburg and Marsden 

Hall - There was no obligation to deal with property a certain way and there was no theft 

Wain - Someone receving charitable donations is under an obligation to provide the relevant amount to the charity 

S.5(4) - Property recived by mistake

AG's Ref (No1 of 1983) - Overpaid wages must be returned, not making restoration is seen as intent to deprive  

Pagett - Supports the 'But For' test 

White - Against the 'But For' test 

Smith - If the defendant is the overwhelming cause the ar ethe legal cause 

Cheshire - Poor medical treatment will not normally break the chain of causation if X made a significant contribution to the death 

Malcherek - Turning off life support will not break caustion 

Roberts - A foreseeable intervening act will not break th echain of caustion 

Williams - An unreasonable act will break the chain of caustion 

Cato - If a defendant supplies/injects a drug there is no break of caustion 

Kennedy - Self-injection of a drug does break the chain of caustion 

Blaue - A paricular weakness will not break the chain of caustion (Thin Skull rule) 

S2 of Theft Act 1968 - Defines what behaviour is dishonest 

S.2(1)(a) - D believes he has the right in law to the property for self or 3rd person there is no dishonesty supported by Small and  Robinson 

S2(1)(b) - D beleived the owner would consent 

S2(1)(c) - If owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps then D will not be dishonest 

Gosh Test - 1) Was D dishonest as per the ordinary standards of a reasonable and honest person? and 2) Did D realise the act would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable people?

S2(2) - Willingness to pay can still mean dishonesty 

Fagan - AR before MR (Contuning act) 

Thabo Meli - MR before AR (Series of events)