Theft - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Theft

Description:

Theft Definition & Actus Reus This means, subject to exceptions, that you cannot steal land or part of it such as soil, rocks, plants or buildings The first exception ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:777
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: Morgan45
Category:
Tags: council | student | theft

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Theft


1
Theft
  • Definition Actus Reus

2
Lesson Objectives
  • I will be able to state the definition of theft
  • I will be able to explain the actus reus of theft
  • I will be able to explain cases that illustrate
    the actus reus of theft
  • I will be able to apply the rules to a given
    situation

3
Definition
  • Theft Act 1968, s1
  • A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly
    appropriates property belonging to another with
    the intention of permanently depriving the other
    of it and thief and steal shall be construed
    accordingly
  • It is immaterial whether the appropriation is
    made with a view to gain, or is made for the
    thiefs own benefit
  • The five following sections of this Act shall
    have effect as regards the interpretation and
    operation of this section (and, except as
    otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only
    for purposes of this section).

4
  • There are 5 things to be proved to secure a
    conviction of theft 3 of these form the actus
    reus of the offence and 2 the mens rea

5
Actus reus element 1 - Appropriation
  • Appropriation is defined in s3 of the Theft Act
    1968 as follows
  • Any assumption by a person of the rights of an
    owner amounts to an appropriation, and this
    includes, where he has come by the property
    (innocently or not) without stealing it, any
    later assumption of a right to it by keeping or
    dealing with it as owner
  • Where property or a right or interest in property
    is, or purports to be, transferred for value to a
    person acting in good faith, no later assumption
    by him of rights which he believed himself to be
    acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the
    transferors title, amount to theft of the
    property

6
  • The general meaning is to take something
  • More formally it is the assumption of the rights
    of an owner
  • Theft can involve more than mere taking of
    property taking rights someone has over
    property (possess, use, modify, sell or destroy)
  • The case that confirms that a range of activities
    can amount to appropriation is Morris (1984)
    appropriation of goods includes a variety of
    activities including switching labels on goods in
    a supermarket

7
  • No criminal appropriation where property has been
    taken with consent (e.g. placing goods in basket
    in supermarket and walking to till crime is
    leaving without paying)
  • The link between the elements of appropriation
    and dishonesty is very close and often forms the
    key aspects of the crime
  • The idea of consent by the owner becomes a point
    of difficulty in some cases

8
  • Lawrence (1972) appropriation can take place
    even where the property has been handed over with
    the consent of the owner there is often a link
    between the appropriation and the fact that it is
    done dishonestly
  • Gomez (1993) the issue of consent occurred here
    in relation to releasing goods against worthless
    cheques it was decided that there can be an
    appropriation even if the goods are leased with
    the owners consent however, it was not true
    consent so the property was dishonestly
    appropriated
  • Hinks (1998) appropriation can take place even
    where there is a voluntary gift The HoL stated
    that the issue of consent was related to
    dishonesty rather than appropriation

9
Actus reus element 2 Property
  • The Theft Act 1968 s4 deals with property. The
    general principle is set out in s4(1) as
  • Property includes money and all other property,
    real or personal including things in action and
    other intangible property
  • This means everything that you can own including
    money, land, belongings, cheques and other things
    of value where the value is not defined by the
    physical thing, for example rights of ownership
    of stocks and shares or forms of credit.

10
  • The Act itself, in s4, goes on to make some
    further explanation and exceptions. These are set
    out in s4(2), (3) and (4) as follows
  • 2. A person cannot steal land, or things forming
    part of land and severed from it by him or by his
    directions, except in the following cases, that
    is to say
  • a) Where he is a trustee or personal
    representative, or is authorised by power of
    attorney, or as liquidator of a company, or
    otherwise, to sell or dispose of land belonging
    to another, and he appropriates the land or
    anything forming part of it by dealing with it in
    breach of the confidence reposed in him or

11
  • b) When he is not in possession of the land and
    appropriates anything forming part of the land by
    severing it or causing it to be severed, or after
    it has been severed or
  • c) when, being in possession of the land under a
    tenancy, he appropriates the whole or part of any
    fixture or structure let to be used with the
    land. For purposes of this subsection, land
    does not include incorporeal hereditaments
    tenancy means a tenancy for years or less
    period and includes an agreement for such a
    tenancy, but a person who, after the end of
    tenancy, remains in possession as statutory
    tenant or otherwise is to be treated as having
    possession under the tenancy, and let shall be
    construed accordingly.

12
  • This means, subject to exceptions, that you
    cannot steal land or part of it such as soil,
    rocks, plants or buildings
  • The first exception occurs in s(2)(a) a person
    can commit theft of land where he has the ability
    to transfer the ownership (or other rights over
    land) to another person and the land or rights
    being transferred are not his to transfer (i.e.
    holding a house in trust for young children and
    selling for personal gain)

13
  • The exception in s(2)(b) means that a person can
    commit theft of things forming part of the land
    that the owner of the land has not allowed the
    thief to posses. This, therefore, includes soil,
    rocks, gravel, buildings (or parts of buildings)
    and crops
  • The exception in s(2)(c) refers to tenants of
    land, whether a tenant farmer or a student in a
    rented house. The tenant can be guilty of theft
    where he removes fixtures this would include a
    shed, separate garage, fittings etc

14
  • 3. A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on
    any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage
    from a plant growing wild on any land, does not
    (although not in possession of the land) steal
    what he picks, unless he does it for rewards or
    for sale or other commercial purpose. For
    purposes of this subsection mushroom includes
    any fungus, and plant includes any shrub or
    tree
  • This means that a person foraging for wild food
    is not guilty unless they sell it or are being
    paid to do so

15
  • 4. Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be
    regarded as property but a person cannot steal a
    wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in
    captivity, or the carcase of any such creature,
    unless either it has been reduced into possession
    by, or on behalf of, another person and
    possession of it has not since been lost or
    abandoned, or another person is in course of
    reducing it into possession
  • This means that a person who traps a wild rabbit
    is not guilty of theft. However, once someone
    else has caught the wild animal, it can then be
    stolen.

16
  • Oxford v Moss (1978) confidential information
    is not property within the meaning of the Theft
    Act 1968 in this case, an examination paper
  • Marshall (1998)- the court took into account the
    value (the intangible property in a travel card
    when convicting defendants who had asked for
    tickets finished with by travellers that still
    had some value left on them
  • Kelly (1998) the court decided that body parts
    could be property for the purposes of theft even
    though the common law is that there is no
    property in a corpse

17
Actus reus element 3 Belonging to another
  • The Theft Act 1968 s5 deals with this element of
    the actus reus of theft. The general principle is
    set out in s5(1) as
  • 1. Property shall be regarded as belonging to any
    person having possession or control of it, or
    having in it any propriety right or interest (not
    being an equitable interest arising only from an
    agreement to transfer or grant an interest)

18
  • This means that at the time the property is
    appropriated it must belong to another. This
    clearly involves rights that are less than
    ownership, as the Act refers to concepts such as
    possession and control
  • Possession and control a person who owns
    property has the fullest rights over it.
    Possession is the physical ability to enjoy the
    property tangible and intangible
  • Ownership of property may be separated from
    possession Webster (2006) where duplicate
    property has been delivered to the defendant by
    mistake, the defendant cannot keep the second
    item it remains the property of the person who
    sent it in error

19
  • There are other rights less than ownership that a
    person can acquire in various ways. This can
    include the right to retain possession of goods
    until a bill has been paid. This can be seen in
    the case of Turner (No.2) (1971) a person can
    be convicted of theft where he steals another
    persons rights over goods in this case it was
    the right to retain possession of the goods until
    a repair bill had been paid the defendant
    appears to have been convicted of stealing his
    own car, but in fact it was the right over the
    car that was stolen
  • It is also the case that a person could be
    convicted of stealing stolen goods from a thief
    who had possession of the stolen goods. The court
    decided in Kelly (1998) that s5(1) does not
    include the word lawful, so any form of
    possession, even unlawful will suffice.

20
  • A person can be in control of property even
    though he does not know that he possesses it.
    Woodman (1974) a person can be in control of
    property he does not know he possesses in the
    case, scrap metal in a disused factory
  • Where property is abandoned, there is no owner of
    that property. The problem is what amounts to
    abandonment if I lose a wedding ring, the
    finder will be guilty of theft if they keep it,
    whereas if you deliberately leave a paper on a
    train you will be abandoning it
  • Rubbish placed in a dustbin for the council to
    collect becomes owned by the council Williams v
    Phillips (1957) property that has been
    abandoned by its owner may become the property of
    those that remove it in this case, the council
    owned rubbish left for collection

21
  • 3) Where a person receives property from, or on
    account of another, and is under obligation to
    the other to retain and deal with that property,
    or its proceeds in a particular way, the property
    or other proceeds shall be regarded (as against
    him) as belonging to the other.
  • This means that the Act recognises that there are
    obligations that are in existence that may not be
    quite as formal as a trust, but still give rise
    for the opportunity to commit the offence of
    theft. Cases on this usually involve money being
    given to someone for a particular purpose.

22
  • Davidge and Bunnett (1984) where money or
    cheques are given for a particular purpose, they
    must be used for that purpose or there can be a
    conviction for theft
  • DPP v Huskinson (1988) where money or cheques
    are given for a particular purpose, there can be
    a conviction for theft only if there is a legal
    and not merely a moral obligation to use the
    proceeds for that purpose

23
  • 2) Where property is subject to a trust, the
    persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as
    including any person having a right to enforce
    the trust, and an intention to defeat the trust
    shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to
    deprive of the property any person having that
    right.
  • This means that money held in any form of trust
    is money belonging to another and this can be
    seen to occur where there is difficulty in
    showing a legal obligation rather than a moral
    obligation.
  • Wain (1995) where money is held in trust for
    someone, the money is money belonging to another
    following the case of Dyke and Munro (2001),
    this principle will apply even if there is no
    specific person who is to benefit from the trust

24
  • 4) Where a person gets property by anothers
    mistake, and is under an obligation to make
    restoration (in whole or in part) of the property
    or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to
    the extent of that obligation the property or
    proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as
    belonging to the person entitled to restoration,
    and an intention not to make restoration shall be
    regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive
    that person of the property or proceeds.
  • This simply means that, where you are given
    something by mistake and have a legal obligation
    to give it back, keeping it may be theft
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com