#14660 - Theft Related Offences - GDL Criminal Law

_______________________________________________________

Theft

S.1(1) Theft Act 1968: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intent to deprive the other permanently of it

‘Property’

Property has a wide meaning including real, personal and intangible property

• The human body

  • R v Rothery - blood sample stolen constituted property

  • R v Kelly - Stolen urine sample constituted property

• Things in action

  • R v Kohn Credit stolen constituted property

• Information as property?

  • Oxford v Moss

Taken exam paper from tutor’s office and took photos

Held: did not come within S.4 as property

• Land: cannot be stolen but rather obtained by deception

  • S.4 Theft Act

• Wild animals

  • S.4(4) Theft Act – wild creatures ‘shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild create not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity

Actus Reus

Appropriation

S.3(1) Theft Act: 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

Theft by keeping

Broom v Crowther

D purchased stolen item unknowingly – he told the police immediately once he found out

Held: conviction quashed for theft as he couldn’t be described as ‘keeping...as owner’ once he knew it was stolen. Thus he hadn’t appropriated stolen property

This has been codified:

S.3(2) Theft Act: 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 transferor's title, amount to theft of the property

Appropriation & consent

R v Lawrence

London taxi driver took 6 more than he should from a customer’s wallet who had handed it out to him with a note as he couldn’t speak English

Held: (HL) was this appropriation? The wallet was handed over voluntarily. Here they stated that consent was irrelevant.

HOWEVER: the Theft Act was based on a Law Commission report which predicated theft on lack of consent.

R v Skipp

Stealing oranges that were supposed to be delivered somewhere but he was planning to take them from the moment they came into his possession for delivery

Held: appropriation occurred when he went off-course, not when he possessed them first

R v Morris

Swapping labels on meat in a supermarket to pay less

Held: (HL) completely contradicting Lawrence, they held that appropriation is pejorative. There must be usurpation of the owner’s rights. If there is implied or express consent then there is no theft.

• "The concept of appropriation ...involves not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by an owner but an act by way of adverse interference with or usurpation of the owner's rights"

R v Gomez

Mr. Gomez was the assistant manager in an electrical store who had acted with others to make money off some building society cheques which they tricked people into giving them.

The question for the House was:

"When theft is alleged and that which is alleged to be stolen passes to the defendant with the consent of the owner, but that consent has been obtained by a false representation, has (a) an appropriation within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 taken place ,or (b) must such a passing of property necessarily involve an element of adverse interference with or some usurpation of some right of the owner?"

Held: (4 to 1) it is unnecessary to show any usurpation of the owner’s interests. It can be any taking or dealing with another’s property

• This effectively diminishes the meaning of ‘appropriation’ which is now any dealing, and theft can only be determined by fault

• Lord Keith: "In my opinion it serves no useful purpose at the present time to seek to construe the relevant provisions of the Theft Act by reference to the report which preceded it, namely the 8th Report of the C.L.R.C. The decision in Lawrence's case was a clear decision of this House upon the construction of the word `appropriates' in section 1(1) of the 1968 Act, which had stood for 12 years when doubt was thrown upon it by obiter dicta in Morris. Lawrence's case must be regarded as authoritative and correct, and there is no question of it now being right to depart from it."

• Lord Lowry (dissenting): "The act of appropriation is a one-sided act, done without the consent or authority of the owner. And, if the owner consents to transfer property to the offender or to a third party, the offender does not appropriate the property, even if the owner's consent has been obtained by fraud."

This overrules Skipp and Morris

R v Gallasso

Registered nurse who paid in cheques for patients and then relied on their bank accounts

Held: (CA) unaware of Gomez, that there needs to be some kind of actual taking. This is now overruled.

Gifts & theft

R v Mazo

D was a maid to Lady S, who received cheques totalling 37k from her. There was a question about the validity of the gifts

Held: no conviction as there was a lack of certainty about the mens rea of the donor – however what is the exact nature of this crime? If found guilty it could be either fraud or theft

Hopkins and Kendrick

D ran an old peoples home where V lived. They were charged with the theft of her money as they had named themselves beneficiaries, prevented family from visiting her and badly dealt with her shares.

Held: the question mark over consent for the gifts made receipt dishonest & liability for theft found

• Counsel argued colourfully about the difference between ill-advised gifts and theft however: "if a sane and wealthy woman, persuaded by reading the Bible that she should give her property to e of the poor, goes down the street and gives her Rolex to the first seller of The Big Issue that she meets, it is submitted that he cannot be guilty of theft, even if her friends tell her that she must be a 'complete nutter'".

R v Hinks

D was 38 & the mother of a young son. She befriended a 57 year old man called John Dolphin who had low IQ. She became the main carer and took 60k from him.

Held: (HL) (3 to 2) upheld her conviction for theft.

The question was whether there can be theft where, in civil law, D has an indefeasible title against the rest of the world:

“Is it sufficient to convict an accused person of theft for the prosecution to prove that the accused dishonestly assumed the rights of the owner of the property with intent permanently to deprive the owner of the property?”

Held: any taking following Gomez can be theft. There can be appropriation with a gift - the court will look to the donee’s mens rea i.e. his appreciation of the validity of the authorisation given by the donor in light of known circumstances.

• Lord Hobhouse questioned the validity of this reasoning.

Belonging to Another

S.5(1) Theft Act 1968: Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).

R v Woodman

Scrap metal company who had sold rights to another to come onto the land and take away some scrap metal. 2 years later the place was derelict with broken fences. Trespassers entered onto the land to take some scrap metal which hadn’t been taken earlier. Had the metal belonged to the company?

Held: (CA) they were in control of the site, and were therefore in control of items on the site though unaware of the specific items thereon

Turner No. 2

Turner put his car into the garage and then crept back in to take it in order to avoid the garage’s charges

Held: the garage had sufficient control so as to belong to them, meaning he stole his own car

R v Meredith

Motor vehicle taken from the highway to a police compound. The owner went onto the compound to reclaim

Held: too many restrictions imposed on the compound for the car to ‘belong to them’. Other penalties were available.

R v Rostrum

Dressed in sub-aqua gear, D dove into lakes on golf courses to retrieve lost golf balls and sold them for around 15-30k per annum. Who did the golf balls belong to?

Held: the golf club had control & so they belonged to the golf course

Property received from or on account of another

S.5(3) Theft Act: Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other

R v Hall

Travel agent who took client money for flights to America and paid it into a general trading account of the business (no separate accounts held). The agency became insolvent.

Held: S.5(3) did not impose a particular obligation to retain and deal with funds in a particularised manner.

The obligation must be a legal one:

R v Brewster

D was a financial consultant who had mixed client money into a general trading account

Held: a common mutual understanding that the money would be kept in a separate account as part of a legal arrangement engaged S.5(3). Distinguished Hall.

Lewis v Lethbridge

Ds had collected money on behalf of the London marathon charity & dissipated it for other purposes.

Held: Ds simply owed a debt to the charity; no legal S.5(3) obligation here

This was overruled by:

R v Wain

D had run events for a Yorkshire telethon campaign and used the money for his own...