Theft and Robbery

S1 Theft Act 1968 = "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with an intention to permanently deprive"

1) Appropriation
2) Property
3) Belonging to another

s.2 - dishonest
s.3 - appropiation
s.4 - property
s.5 - belonging to another
s.6 - intention to permanently deprive

s.3 - any assumption of the owner’s rights

any [adverse] interferences with any of the owners rights is enough

There wasn’t an appropriation as his consent was obtained by deception.

Gifts of money by a naïve, gullible man of low intelligence to D were an appropriation.

s4 - four types of property can be stolen under the theft act.
- money
- personal
- intangible / thing in action
- real

Wild plants are not property unless taken for reward or sale

confidential information on an exam paper was not property.

: a urine sample was property of the lab where it had been sent, making D guilty of theft of his own sample when he took it.

an export quota was intangible property

Money in the bank is a ‘thing in action’ (an enforceable right) so is property

S5(1) -Belonging to another means possession, control, or proprietary interest (i.e. ownership)

D was guilty of theft of his own car, when he took it from a garage without paying for the repairs as it was in the possession and control of the garage.

items left outside a charity shop belong to the person who donated them until taken into the control or possession of the charity.

holding money for a particular purpose, must use money for the purpose given

receiving property by mistake, D is under legal obligation to return the money

dishonesty
intention to permanently deprive

3 exceptions where d is not dishonest- s2 (1)
(a) = d believes they have a right in law to the property (Holden)
(b) = d believes the owner would consent to taking the property
(c) = d believes the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps (Small)

If the D does not fit into the 3 negatives apply the test. Would D’s behaviour be regarded as dishonest by the standard of the honest reasonable person? ( R v Booth & Another) confirmed in ~

S6(1) - where the d intends to treat the item "as his own" to dispose of regardless of owners rights.

D took £1000 from safe intending to return it. Held: guilty; cannot return exact notes and coins taken

Borrowing property until ‘the goodness, virtue, the practical value has gone’ amounts to an outright taking or disposal of that property and so is IPD.

S8 Theft Act 1968 = 'D steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, uses force of the threat of force"

1) steals
2) force or the threat of force (b) must be used
3) force immediately before or at the time
4) in order to steal

D must of committed a theft ( Robinson )

Any amount of force is enough (Dawson) "force" is given its ordinary meaning.

Indirect force can be used - shopping bag (2c)

It can be expressed or implied and , it is enough that d seeks to put v in fear

force must be u [___________] and it must be connected to the theft
Hale - appropriation is a continuing act

R v James: If D incapacitates V without intending to steal from them, and then opportunistically steals, there is no robbery. (4)

dishonesty - s2
intention to permanently deprive - s6
write in scenario "mr for theft has already been established"
mens rea for robbery:
intention to use force or the threat of force (Mohan)