Theft - UK Criminal Law

S6

(With Intention to) Permanently Deprive

R v Holden

A Kwik Fit Employee took tyres like previous employees had. He was convicted of Theft argued that he was not being dishonest. The COA quashed his conviction due to belief of a legal right can be found in S2.1 Theft Act - What is not Dishonest which according to precedent is to be judged entirely subjectively.

Definition of Theft

A Person is Guilty of Theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive.

R v Lawrence

A student with little English skills got a Taxi - The taxi cost 0.52p but the taxi driver took another £6-Taxi driver convicted of theft. The taxi driver argued that D handed him the money and therefore was consenting. HOL said its still Theft despite the consent.

R v Small

Abandoned Car- D took it - convicted of Theft- Conviction quashed as reasonable steps were taken to return it but there was no owner to return it to.

S3

Appropriation

S5

Belonging to Another

R v Rostron

D kept taking golf balls from the Lake at the Golf Course. D convicted of theft. The Golf Balls still belonged to the Golf Club

R v Marshall

D took Underground Tickets that were finished being used and sold them onto other passengers. convicted of Theft. The tickets were still property of the Underground Rail company.

R v Turner

D took his own car from the Garage without paying for repairs. Convicted and found Guilty of Theft . The Garage had possession and had become the owner of the car

R v Velumyl

D took money from the safe at work with the intention of replacing it. He was Convicted of Theft. The COA said he wouldn't be putting the same money back and is therefore a theft.

Attorney General Reference

D was over paid by boss. COA said S5.4 Theft Act 1968 creates a legal obligation to return the excess even though she took ownership of it when it was entered in to her bank account.

R v Hall

D worked as a Travel Agent and took deposits - The agency went Bankrupt. Found Not Guilty. The money was not for a holiday but to secure a place there was no obligation to use the money to book the holidays.

R v Gilks

Horse bet -Bookie made a mistake and paid V , there's no legal obligation to return the money. Just a moral obligation to return the money.

Low V Blease

It is an offence to make Dishonest Use, Wasting or Diverting Electricity

R v Ghosh

Lord Lane CJ put forward a test for Dishonesty. 1. Were the Defendants actions Dishonest according to a Reasonable and Honest person ? If not the Defendant is to be Acquitted 2. Did the Defendant realise that his actions were dishonest?

S4

Property

S11

Removal of Public Property

S1

Statutory definition of Theft

R v Kelly and Lindsay

Stole Body Parts - a body part is not normally considered as someone's propertty

Oxford V Moss

Students took an exam paper and returned it. Confidential Information cannot be stolen as it is not seen as property and therefore there was no crime.

R v Morris

Switching price tags - There can be an appropriation when the Thief assumes the rights of an owner

R v Akbar

Teacher convicted of theft , took exam papers and gave them to students.

R v Feely

The Defendant borrowed £30 from his place of work with th intention to replace it in a few days- The Trial Judge said that his actions were clearly dishonest. His conviction was Quashed. The issue of Dishonesty should have been put to the Jury

R v Lloyd

The Defendant was a Pirate Videoist, he took films from his place of work (the cinema) to copy and sell. He was convicted of theft. The COA overruled the decision and quashed his decision . They said in order to be convicted the property must have lost all its Goodness and Virtue and in this instance it hadnt.

Theft Statute

The Theft Act 1968

R V Pitham and Hehl

The Victim was in Jail, the Defendant broke into V's house and tried to sell V's Furniture. Convicted of theft. Appropriation includes the right to sell.

R v Hinks

The Victim was of Low intelligence. D friended V and persuaded him to highest £300 a day. The HOL said that the money that totalled £60,000.00 Although was a gift due to the victims circumstances it is was an appropriation.

S7

Theft Sentencing Requirements

R v Wain

There was a Telethon to raise money. There was an obligation to use the money in a particular way. D didn't , he spent the money he was Convicted of Theft even though the money was in the D's Bank account it was still to be used in a particular way.

S2

What is not Dishonesty