Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Appropriation |
R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697 (Morris): Conjoined appeals both involving the switching of price labels in supermarkets.Morris was arrested after paying a lowersum for certain items, Burnside was arrested before paying for the goods.The question for the Lords to decide was whether an appropriation required theassumption of all rights of an owner and also if there was an appropriation atwhat point in time did this occur. Held:There need not be an appropriation of all the rights of an owner. Theappropriation took place when there was an adverse interference with orusurpation of the rights of an owner which was at the point of switching thelabel, not at the point of taking the goods from the shelf. Lord Roskill:"If one postulates anhonest customer taking goods from a shelf to put in his or her trolley to taketo the checkpoint there to pay the proper price, I am unable to see that any ofthese actions involves any assumption by the shopper of the rights of thesupermarket...The concept of appropriation in my view involves not an actexpressly or impliedly authorised by the owner but an act by way of adverseinterference with or usurpation of those rights. " |
|
|
An appropriation may still be presentnotwithstanding the consent of the owner |
Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626 (Lawrence): An Italian man who spoke little English, arrived at Victoria Station on his first visit to this country. He got a taxi and gave the driver a piece of paper on which an address was written. The taxi driver told him it was a long way and would be expensive. On arrival at the destination the Italian, took one pound out of his wallet and gave it to the driver. The driver intimated that it was not enough and reached into his wallet and took a further six pounds out of it. The correct lawful fare for the journey was in the region of 10s. 6d. The driver was convicted of theft and appealed contending that the Italian man had consented to the appropriation of the six pounds and his conviction could not therefore stand. Held: His conviction for theft was upheld. An appropriation can take place notwithstanding the consent of the owner. |
|
|
Appropriation - money from bank accounts which are overdrawn can betheft if within overdraft limits |
Chan Man Sin v Attorney General for Hong Kong (1988) PC: D an accountant for H and M withdrew $4.8m from both H’s and M’s accounts using forged cheques. Both accounts went overdrawn, but within agreed limits. D argued that the bank had no right to honour the forged cheques and the transactions should have been void. Held: D was guilty of theft of choses in action, i.e. the debts owed by the bank to the companies. Lord Oliver: "One who draws, presents and negotiates a cheque on a particular bank account is assuming the rights of the owner of the credit in the account or (as the case may be) of the pre-negotiated right to draw on the account up to the agreed figure." |
|
|
Cheques backed by a guarantee card drawn on an account in a fictitiousname, in which there are no funds, is not an "appropriation" - therelationship in such a case is between the payee and the bank |
Navvabi, R v (1986): D opened bankaccounts using false names. He used 12 cheques supported by a banker’s card ina casino to obtain gaming chips. There were insufficient funds in the accountsto cover the cheques. D argued that there had been no appropriation. Held: The useof a banker’s card to guarantee a cheque drawn on an account with insufficientfunds was not appropriation. The use of the banker’s card to support a chequemerely gave the payee a contractual right against the bank to be paid the sumspecified on the cheque. Therefore, there was no appropriation by D neitherwhen he gave the cheque to the payee nor when the payee presented the cheque tothe bank and it was honoured. D had not assumed the rights of the bank to thatpart of the funds of the bank. |
|
|
Later assumption by innocent purchaser not theft – relevance of s 3(2) |
D, a motor cycle enthusiast brought some spare parts for cash. He issued a proper receipt. He understood they had come from a "write off”, He did not know at the time they had been stolen. A few days later he noticed some of the numbers had been drilled out. Held: The person who buys property in good faith does not commit theft when he subsequently learns that he is not the owner. |
|
|
Property |
R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299: The appellantwas a company director. He took money from the company's safe andclaimed that he intended to return it after the weekend. Held:His convictionwas upheld. Unless he intended to pay back the exact notes and coins he had theintention to permanently deprive the company of the money taken. 'Ransom' cases: D takes (orborrows) V's property, intending to return it if V pays for it = IPD. Raphael [2008] EWCA Crim 1014: |
|
|
Personal property |
R v Smith & Ors [2011] 1 Cr App R 30:Smith arranged to meet Chesterfield Jordan in order to buy some heroin from him. When Jordan arrived at themeeting point, the other appellants, Plummer and Haines, emerged from an alleyway where they had been hiding and attacked Jordan. Plummer put aknife to his throat and Haines punched him to the ground. Once Jordan was onthe ground all three kicked him anddemanded the heroin. Jordan handed over the heroin and they ranoff. The three appellants were convicted of robbery and appealed on the groundsthat drugs did not constitute property for the purposes of the Theft Act sincethe possession of it was unlawful. Held:Appeal dismissed. The convictions were upheld.S.4 Theft Act 1968 definesproperty as including all tangible property, whilst some exceptions are set outin the Act such as real property and wild animals, the exceptions do not extendto property in unlawful possession. R v Sharp 1857 Dears & Bell 160 - Property doesnot include corpses. R v Kelly [1999] 2 WLR 384 - Body parts mayconstitute property. Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183 - Intangibleproperty is property which has no physical existence. However, it has been heldthat confidential information does not constitute property for the purposes ofthe Theft Act. |
|
|
Belonging toanother |
R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901: The defendant took his car in to a service station for repairs. When he went to pick it up he saw that the car was left outside with the key in. He took the car without paying for the repairs. He was liable for theft of his own car since the car was regarded as belonging to the service station as they were in possession and control of it. |
|
|
Property which a person with instructions to dealwith it in a certain way |
Davidge v Bennett [1984] Crim LR 297: The defendant received cheques from her flat mates which were to pay for the communal gas bill. The defendant spent the money on Christmas presents and left the flat without paying the gas bill. Held: She was liable for theft as under s.5(3) TA 1968 the cheques had been given with a clear obligation to apply the money for payment of the gas bill. R v Hall [1973] 1 QB 496: A travel agent received money from clients for deposits for their holidays. He paid these monies into the general current account for the business. The business collapsed before he paid the money to book the holidays and the clients lost their deposit. Held: The travel agent was not liable for theft as there was no obligation to deal with the money in a particular way under s.5(3) Theft Act 1968. |
|
|
Receives property by mistake |
A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182:The defendant, a police woman, received an overpayment in her wages by mistake. She had noticed that she had received more than she was entitled to but did not say anything to her employer. She did not withdraw any of the money from her bank account. The trial judge directed the jury to acquit. The Attorney General referred a question to the Court of Appeal. Held: It was possible for a theft conviction to arise where the defendant had not withdrawn the money. There was a legal obligation to return the money received by mistake. |
|
|
Unaware of the over payment, however, there is no dishonesty |
Moynes v Cooper 1956 1 KB 439: The Appellant workman received £7 in his pay packet more than was due to him. He did not open his pay packet until sometime later. He then kept the £7. This was held not to be theft because he was not dishonest at the time of the receiving the money. |
|
|
Legal obligation to return the money as opposeto a moral obligation |
R v Gilks [1972] 1 WLR 1341: The Appellant placed a bet on a horse called 'Fighting Scott'. The race was won by a horse called 'Fighting Taffy'. The manager of the betting shop mistakenly believed the Appellant had won the bet and paid out £106.63. The Appellant knew that the manager was mistaken but accepted the money. He was convicted of theft and appealed on the grounds that since there was no legal obligation to repay the money following the decision in Morgan v. Ashcroft, 1938 1 Kings Bench, the money was simply a gift and therefore in law belonged to him. He argued that s.5(4) Theft Act 1968 relating to money received by mistake required a legal obligation, moral obligation was not sufficient. Held: His conviction was upheld because there was no need to invoke s.5(4) of the Theft Act 1968 since the property in the £106.63 never passed to the Appellant and therefore the property belonged to another. However, if s.5 (4) had applied, a moral obligation would not be sufficient to constitute criminal liability. Cairns LJ: "Where a person's criminal liability is made dependent or his having an obligation, it would be quite wrong to construe that word so as to cover a moral or social obligation as distinct from a legal one." |
|
|
Abandoned property |
Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates [2010] EWHC2358: The appellanttook six bags containing used clothing and other miscellaneous items fromoutside charity shops owned by Oxfam and the British Heart Foundation (BHF). Heintended to sell the items at a car boot sale. The bags from Oxfam were takenfrom a bin outside the shop in which people could leave donated items. The bagsfrom BHF were simply placed outside the door to the shop. The Magistratescommitted the case to the Crown court on the basis that he had stolen propertybelonging to Oxfam and the BHF. He brought an application for judicial reviewto quash their decision contending the items had been abandoned and thereforedid not belong to anyone. Held: The bags taken from thebins outside Oxfam could be taken to be in Oxfam’s possession at the time heappropriated them. However, with regard to the bags taken from outside BHF, nopossession or proprietary interest could be taken to arise from them simplybeing left in the vicinity. However, it didn’t follow that the items had beenabandoned. The donor intended the items to be a gift to the BHF, they hadattempted delivery of the gift, and the gift would be complete once BHF tookpossession of the items. The items still belonged to the donor until BHF tookpossession. |
|
|
Lost property |
Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJ QB 75: The claimantfound a package that had been dropped in the defendant’s shop. He handed it tothe defendant who opened it and discovered it contained bank notes. Theclaimant left it with the defendant to return to the true owner if theyreturned to collect it. After three years no one had claimed the money and thedefendant could not trace the true owner. The claimant asked the defendant toreturn the money to him. The defendant refused so the claimant brought anaction seeking the return of the money. Held:The claimant was entitled to the return of themoney. Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142 - Unless theyare a trespasser. Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4All ER 756 - However, where the items are found underthe surface of land, the land owner has a better title than the finder |
|
|
Include a company |
R v Philippou (1989) CA: D, a director of a group of holiday companies, bought a block of flats used by S, one of the companies, using S's money. D argued that the withdrawal of the money could not be an appropriation as D and his co-director were the mind of S and their instructions to the bank therefore amounted to a consent by S. Held: The instruction to the bank was only one part of the transaction; the other being the use of the money to buy the flats. From that the jury could infer that the transaction was dishonest and the intention was to deprive S of the money |
|
|
Dishonesty There is no requirement that the defendant'sbelief is reasonably held: |
R v Holden [1991] Crim LR 478:The appellant worked for Kwikfit. He tooksome used tyres and was convicted of theft. He appealed contending that he wasnot dishonest since other workers did the same and he believed that he wasallowed to do the same. However, his contract of employment contained a clauseforbidding the taking of used items. Held: His conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal. The question of dishonestyunder the exceptions in s.2(1) Theft Act 1968 is judged entirely subjectively.It is the defendant's belief alone that counts not what he was actuallypermitted or forbidden from doing. R v Feely (1973) QB 530 - The question of dishonesty must be left for the jury to decide. |
|
|
In situations notcovered by s.2, where the defendant claims that he is not dishonest, the Ghoshtest applies: |
R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110: The appellant was a surgeon who claimed money in respect of operations which he had not carried out. He argued his actions were not dishonest as the same sums were legitimately due to him for consultancy fees. The trial judge directed the jury: "Now, finally dishonesty. There are, sad to say, infinite categories of dishonesty. It is for you. Jurors in the past and, whilst we have criminal law in the future, jurors in the future have to set the standards of honesty. Now it is your turn today, having heard what you have, to consider contemporary standards of honesty and dishonesty in the context of all that you have heard. I cannot really expand on this too much, but probably it is something rather like getting something for nothing, sharp practice, manipulating systems and many other matters which come to your mind. " The jury convicted and he appealed. Held: His conviction was upheld. The test for determining dishonesty: Lord Lane CJ "In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest." |
|
|
Intention to permanently deprive |
R v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297:The defendant removed some doorsfrom a council property that was due for demolition. He installed the doorsin his girlfriend's flat which was also owned by the council. Held:He did have the intention to permanently deprive under s.6(1) as hetreated the doors as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights. |
|
|
Intention to deprive - cannot be formed afterfood is eaten |
Corcoran v Whent [1977] DC: D consumed food and drink at an hotel with a companion intending that the meal should be paid for. When he left the hotel his companion told him that the meal had not been paid for. He was convicted of theft as the justices found that when he was told that the food had not been paid for, the appellant formed the intention permanently to deprive the hotel of it. Held: It was ridiculous to suggest that any intention relating to food could be formed after it had been consumed. |
|
|
Intention topermanently deprive includes damaging property |
DPP v J [2002] QBD: DD who were 14 robbed another boy. They snatched his headphones and broke them in half, and then returned them to the boy. Held: An intention to permanently deprive could be inferred from the acts of the defendants. Once they had snapped the headphones, they had rendered them useless. Moreover, by snatching and snapping the article, they had in reality disposed of it. An action whose result rendered property useless, was in effect no different from an action which risked the loss of that article. |
|
|
Intention topermanently deprive includes reselling used tickets which will be returned toLondon Transport - a chose in action created a right which was appropriated |
R v Marshall [1999] CA: DDD obtained London Underground tickets from passengers leaving the system and sold them to other potential customers. Held: On issuing an Underground ticket a contract was created between London Underground and the purchaser, under which both parties had rights and obligations which could be enforced. Each party to the contract had obtained a chose in action, represented on the purchaser’s side by the right to travel on the Underground and on London Underground’s side by the right to insist that the ticket was used by no-one other than the purchaser. It was this right that was disregarded when the appellants acquired the tickets and sold them on. The charge of theft related to the tickets themselves, which were not choses in action. The fact that the tickets might return to the possession of London Underground was irrelevant. The Theft Act 1968 s 6(1) applied. The appellants had admitted dishonesty. R v Lloyd, Bhuee & Ali [1985] QB 829 – Borrowing – all the virtue, goodness and practical value has been taken from the property. |
