This is an extract of our Theft document, which we sell as part of our GDL Criminal Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Criminal Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
- s1(1) Theft Act 1968: a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
- AR: appropriation of property belonging to another
- MR: dishonesty + intention to permanently deprive.
Actus Reus: appropriation of property belonging to another.
- Appropriation - s3 TA 1968. s3(1) TA 1968: any assumption of the rights of an owner. inc. where he has come by the property without stealing it any later assumption by keeping/dealing with it. any 1 of owner's rights (R v Morris: d. switched labels in shop; R v Pitham & Hehl: d. posed as house owner). consent irrelevant: appropriation neutral (R v Gomez, [Ld B-W]: objective description of act done). theft of gift possible (R v Hinks: d. tricked man into giving money). later appropriation: still appropriation (s3(1)) ? if initial assumption not theft, theft can occur when d. forms MR.
+ appropriation can be continuing act (R v Hale). innocent purchaser (good faith, for value) of stolen property not liable (s3(2); R v Adams).
- Property - s4 TA 1968. s4(1) TA 1968: money + all other property, real or personal, inc. things in action + intangible property. property which may NOT be stolen: s4(2): land or part of land (UNLESS: (a): in breach of trust; (b): not in possession + severs anything forming part of land; (c): tenant taking fixtures). s4(3): wild growing things (UNLESS: for reward or sale or commercial purpose). s4(4): wild creatures/carcass not tamed or kept in captivity (UNLESS: reduced into possession by other). confidential information (Oxford v Moss: student looked at exam paper before set ? not guilty). electricity (Low v Blease: burglar made telephone call ? not guilty).
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.