Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Burglary

Basic definition:
•
•

S
...

S
...


Entry: is not defined in the Theft act 1968 but there are cases regarding it
...

Brown (1985): D was seen leaning through a broken shop window with the top half of his body
inside a shop as though he was rummaging around
...
He claimed
that he could not be said to have entered a building if only part of his body had been inside it
...
The proposition that a person could break a shop window, pass his hands through
the window into the shop and steal and not be held as having entered as a trespasser was incredible
...
He was not in a position to steal
...
It
appears therefore that we return to the common law position that the body or part of the body or
an extension of the body used or intended to facilitate theft amounts to entry whereas entry by a
tool for effecting entry does not
...
Can also include
someone who has authority to enter land for a particular purpose but enters it for another purpose
...
He had left home but was allowed to visit
...

Can also include someone who acts in excess of permission given
...

Building: s9 (4) includes inhabited vehicle vessel
...
The freezer was 25
feet long with 7 feet square cross-section, weighing about three tons and had been in place for two
or three years
...
In addition its doors were equipped to keep

trespassers out and it was connected to an outside source of electricity
...

Norfolk Constabulary V Seekings & Gould (1986): D and accomplice tried to get into two articulated
lorry trailers being used by a supermarket as temporary storage space while the building was being
redeveloped
...
Access was by way of steps
...
It seems that something will not qualify as a ‘building’
unless it has some degree of permanence; in this case it still had its wheels
...
The counter
was movable, but occupied a clearly identified area
...
D was
convicted for burglary
...
Held: it is for the jury to decide whether the
area physically marked out by a counter was sufficiently segregated to amount to a "part of a
building" from which the general public are excluded
...


G153 Revision
Causation

Must know:
•
•
•
•
•

be able to understand the ideas of factual and legal causation,
know about the different ways in which the chain may be broken,
have studied a series of relevant cases,
understand the problems with this area of law,
be able to apply the law to a case study and draw sensible conclusions
...
For
example: assault causing actual bodily harm
...

Someone can only be liable for an offence if their acts are both the factual and the legal cause of
the outcome
...

- White 1910: The defendant put some poison in his mother's milk with the intention of
killing her
...
Medical
reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison
...
He was liable for attempt
...
I
...

would the result have occurred but for the actions of the defendant? If the answer is yes
the defendant is not liable
...
A child ran in front of the cart and was killed
...

The defendant was charged with gross negligence manslaughter for his involvement in an
incident involving a train becoming derailed
...
He misread the train time-table and ordered the work to be done
at a time when the train was due
...
The defendant argued that if the lookout man and driver were doing their job
correctly the incident would not have occurred
...

The defendant's action need not be the only cause
...

Did not directly cause the outcome

•
•

This seems logical but doesn’t always break the chain
...

Pagett 1983: He used the girl as a shield as he came out of the flat and walked along the
balcony
...
The
appellant fired shots at the police and the police returned fire
...

The appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, kidnap of

the mother and daughter, attempted murder on the father and two police officers and the
manslaughter of the girl
...
Held: Conviction upheld
...
In
firing back the police officers were acting in self -defence
...

Victim tried to escape and caused themselves harm
•
•

•

This cover situations where the D has scared the V so badly that they have tried to escape and
has been injured in the attempt
...
She had not met the man before and it was 3
...
The defendant drove in a
different direction to where he told her he was taking her and then stopped in a remote place
and started making sexual advances towards her
...
He then started making further advances whilst driving and she jumped out of the
moving car to escape him
...
The defendant
was convicted of actual bodily harm under s
...
He
appealed contending that he did not intend or foresee a risk of her suffering actual bodily harm
from his actions and that he did not foresee the possibility of her jumping out of the car and
therefore her actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens
...
47
...
Where
the victim's actions were a natural result of the defendant's actions it matters not whether the
defendant could foresee the result
...

Williams (1992): The defendants picked up a hitchhiker on the way to Glastonbury festival
...
The
prosecution alleged that the defendants were in the course of robbing him when he jumped out
and thus their actions amounted to constructive manslaughter
...

Held: Conviction was quashed as there was an almost total lack of evidence as to the nature of
the threat
...

Pre-existing medical conditions

•

In criminal law there is a basic principle that you take your victim as you find them
...

Victim makes his condition worse or refuses medical treatment

•
•

•
•

D cannot use a V’s refusal to have treatment or a deliberate worsening of their condition as
evidence to break the chain of causation
...
This is the first case on causation and the law hasn’t changed very much since
...

Dear 1996: It was suggested that the V had committed suicide by deliberately reopening the
wound, because he was a bail for a paedophilia charge and didn’t want to face facts
...
She was a practising Jehovah's witness and refused to have a blood
transfusion which would have saved her life
...
Held: The defendant's conviction was upheld
...

Medical treatment given is inadequate

•

•

•

•

Jordan 1956: The defendant stabbed the victim
...
He was also given excessive
amounts of intravenous liquids
...
At the
time of death his wounds were starting to heal
...
The defendant was not liable for his death
...
The injured soldier was taken to the medics but was dropped twice on route
...
They failed to diagnose that his lung had
been punctured
...
The defendant was convicted of murder and appealed
contending that if the victim had received the correct medical treatment he would not have
died
...

Cheshire 1991: The defendant shot a man in the stomach and thigh
...
The hospital gave him a
tracheotomy (a tube inserted into the windpipe connected to a ventilator)
...
The defendant
was convicted of murder and appealed
...
Intervening medical treatment could only be
regarded as excluding the responsibility of the defendant if it was so independent of the
defendant's act and so potent in causing the death, that the jury regard the defendant's acts as
insignificant
...

Mellor 1996: V was beaten up, development pneumonia but wasn’t given oxygen and the V
died
...
Contributed
...
This might
cause a problem because…
...
(as it means the person actually caused the result
...

The case of Pagett seems unfair at first sight because (his bullet didn’t kill the defendant)
However it may be considered to be fair because (he used her as a shield from the police and

•

•
•

fired first
...
)
Some people may argue that that the person who starts the events off should always be fully
responsible for the consequence because (if they didn’t do it then the end result or any of the
other events would not have happened
...

Know the development of the definition for oblique intention via key cases
Be able to critically analyse the said definition
...

Oblique intention: Intention to produce one result but actually achieving something else
...

Objective: the outlook of most normal ordinary people
...
When stopped by a
police officer, he drove away at speed
...
D was convicted of murder
...
”
– Viscount Kilmuir LC
Problem with this definition: This definition was purely objective and didn’t take into
account the defendants thoughts
...
8 which stated all the evidence had to be taken into account
...
D was
convicted of murder
...
This
meant that different judges used it differently which made the law unpredictable and
confusing, this was because it didn’t include a level of foresight
...
The D and his stepfather decided to have a contest on who could load and
be ready to fire a gun the quickest
...

Definition of oblique intention: Lord Bridge’s 2 part test “Was death or serious injury a
natural consequence? And if so did the Defendant foresee this?”
Problem with definition: Didn’t use probability and people found it confusing
...

Hancock and Shankland (1986) HL

•

•
•

Facts: D’s were striking miners who knew that a taxi carrying miners who’d broken the strike
and of to work would go a certain way, so they waited over a bridge until the car drove
under
...

Definition of oblique intention: “The greater the probability of a consequence, the more
likely it was foreseen, and if foreseen the more likely it was intended
...


•
Nedrick (1986) CA
•

•

•

Facts: D had a grudge against a women
...
D was convicted of murder but the CA quashed the
conviction and substituted one of murder
...

Woollin 1998

•

•

•

Facts: D threw his three month baby towards his pram which was against a wall
...
The Court ruled that the consequence must have been
virtually certain and the D must have realised his
...


A02 points:
•
•

Historically Courts have struggled to achieve a consistent definition
...

- The law commission produced a paper called “Murder, Manslaughter and
Infanticide” 2006 in which proposed codifying the Woolin definition of oblique
intent
...
”
USA: “a person acts intentionally when it is his conscious object to cause such a result and
that a person acts knowingly when he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct
will cause such a result
...
Woollin (HL) Speech by Lord Steyn
- “Widely welcomed by distinguished academic writers”
- “In twelve years… (has) caused no practical difficulties”
- “I am satisfied…
...

-

•

•

Gross Negligence Manslaughter
The leading case is the HL decision in Adomako (1995)
...


Duty of care: in criminal law certain duty situations are recognised
...
The defendant lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass and then went off to
lunch failing to put it back down
...

The defendant was liable for the death of the train driver as it was his contractual duty to close the
gate
...
The woman hated Nelly, and was clearly
the moving force
...
The woman was held to be liable because, while the
child was not hers, she was living with the man and had accepted his money for food
...

Stone and Dobinson 1977: (also in case notes) Ted Stone was 67, totally blind, partially deaf had no
appreciable sense of smell and was of low intelligence
...
Ted's
sister Fanny came to live with them
...
She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia nervosa
...
However, Fanny's condition deteriorated and she was found
dead in her bed in appalling conditions
...
They failed to look after her and ensure
she got the medical help she needed
...
In civil law D is judged against
the standards of the reasonably competent person performing the activity involved
...
In
the civil law no concession is made for inexperience
...

Gross negligence: simply proving that D has been in breach of a duty will not lead to criminal
liability, even though D has been responsible for that person’s death
...
In Adomako the HL confirmed that the correct test for this extra
element was ‘gross negligence’
...

In Adomako Lord Mackay stats that the test for the jury to consider was ‘whether the extent to
which D’s conduct departed from the proper standard of care incumbent on him, involving as it must
have done a risk of death… was such that it should be judged criminal”

MURDER
Actus Reus:
• Know the definition from Lord Coke
• Understand the following quotes from the definition
- “The concept of lawfulness”
- “Reasonable creature”
- “Kings peace”
• Could understand in more depth:
- “Year and a day”
- “Age”
- “Human being”
Mens Rea
• Mens rea of murder
• Difference between intention and motive
• Transferred malice
• Double effect
...
As it
would be inappropriate to prosecute
...
Is ten under the children and
young persons act 1933 s
...
Another example is in self-defence or the defence if another
...
This is problematic if an abortion
happens because from body and have an independent circulation
...
Case Ag’s ref 3/94
...
Therefore brain-dead is a
recognised test for test
...

“So that the part… die
...
This roles was abolished by the law reforms (year and a day rule) act
1996
...


Mens Rea
•

Malice Aforethought: means either intention to kill or intention to do grievous bodily harm,
DDP V Smith 1961 is the authority for this
...


Motive is not the same as mens rea, for example if you stealing food for a starving person
you are still guilty of theft, even though your motive was a good one, you still intended to
steal
...
When stopped by a police officer, he drove away at speed
...
D was convicted of murder
...
” – Viscount Kilmuir LC Problem with this definition: This
definition was purely objective and didn’t take into account the defendants
thoughts
...
8 which
stated all the evidence had to be taken into account
...
D was convicted of murder
...
This meant that different judges used it differently which
made the law unpredictable and confusing, this was because it didn’t include a
level of foresight
...
The D and his stepfather decided to
have a contest on who could load and be ready to fire a gun the quickest
...

Definition of oblique intention: Lord Bridge’s 2 part test “Was death or serious injury a
natural consequence? And if so did the Defendant foresee this?” Problem with definition: Didn’t use probability and people found it confusing
...


•

Hancock and Shankland (1986) HL Facts: D’s were striking miners who knew that a
taxi carrying miners who’d broken the strike and of to work would go a certain way,
so they waited over a bridge until the car drove under
...
Definition of oblique intention: “The greater the probability of
a consequence, the more likely it was foreseen, and if foreseen the more likely it was
intended
...


•

Nedrick (1986) CA Facts: D had a grudge against a women
...
D was convicted of
murder but the CA quashed the conviction and substituted one of murder
...

•

Woollin 1998 Facts: D threw his three month baby towards his pram which was
against a wall
...
The Court ruled that the
consequence must have been virtually certain and the D must have realised his
...


Transferred Malice
•

Latimer 1886: L had a quarrel in a pub with P
...
The
belt bounced off P and hit Q with full force, severely wounding Q
...


•

Pemblition 1874: P was involved in a fight outside a pub
...
It missed
them and hit a window
...


Law G153 Revision
Omissions

Omissions

Specification
-

You will be able to understand the idea of actus reus
You will be able to identify situations where an omission will be enough for the actus
reus of a crime
...

You will be able to explain at least four critical points about this topic
...

You should be able to identify other types of actus reus
...

You should be able to explain the concept of release from duty
...

You may be able to appreciate the link to Gross Negligence Manslaughter
...


Introduction
•

Generally speaking law in England does not base criminal liability on a failure to act however
there are some exceptions to this
...

- Case: DPP v Greener, (dangerous dogs act): The defendant was the owner Staffy
...
The dog had strained and bent the clip
releasing its chain
...
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 provides that if the owner of a
dog allows it to a place which isn’t public and isn’t invited their and while it is there it injures
any person, he is guilty of an offence
...
The word "allows" included taking and omitting
to take a positive step
...
Similar precautions had been taken in the past but they were obviously
inadequate as the fastening was not good enough and the enclosure not secure
...

Case Pittwood (1902) (also in case notes): The defendant was employed by a railway company
to man the gate at a level crossing
...
A train later collided with a horse and cart killing
the train driver
...

Adomako 1994: D, an anaesthetist, failed to observe during an eye operation that the tube
inserted in V’s mouth had become detached from the ventilator, causing V to suffer a cardiac
arrest and eventually die
...

Public office duty

•
•

The actus reus can be committed by an omission where there exists a duty imposed by law,
public office is one of these
...
He stood by whilst a
bouncer kicked a man to death
...
He argued that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specifically
requires misconduct
...
The defendant's conviction was upheld
...

Gibbons & Proctor 1918: (In case notes) D and his common law wife failed to feed the man's 7
year-old child, Nelly, and she died from starvation
...
Held: Where there is the duty to act, failure to do so can lead to liability even for
murder if the necessary mens rea is present
...
The courts
regarded the parent's duty towards a young child as so self-evident as not to require analysis or
authority
...
The child died some
10 days later of dehydration and gross emaciation
...
D stated that he had told her to take the
child to the doctor, but she had not done so because she was afraid that the child would be taken
into care
...

(1) D ought to have realised the possible consequences of his failure to call a doctor; the sole
question was whether his failure to do so was (a) deliberate, and (b) the cause of the child’s
unnecessary suffering or injury to health;
(2) A clear distinction was to be drawn in relation to an act of commission and an act of omission;

•

mere neglect, even though deliberate, which caused injury to a child’s health and resulted in its
death, did not necessarily constitute manslaughter where accused had failed to foresee the
consequences of his neglect
...
He lived with his housekeeper and
mistress of 8 years, Gwendolyn Dobinson aged 43 who was described as ineffectual and
inadequate
...
She had previously lived with another
sister but had fallen out with her
...
Ted and Gwendolyn took her in and agreed to look after her
...
Held: Stone
and Dobinson were found liable for her death as they had assumed a responsibility to her by
taking her in
...

Voluntarily Relationship

•
•

•

•
•

•

Is where someone volunteers to look after someone and fails to do so
...
He lived with his housekeeper and
mistress of 8 years, Gwendolyn Dobinson aged 43 who was described as ineffectual and
inadequate
...
She had previously lived with another
sister but had fallen out with her
...
Ted and Gwendolyn took her in and agreed to look after her
...
Held: Stone
and Dobinson were found liable for her death as they had assumed a responsibility to her by
taking her in
...

Gibbons & Proctor 1918: (In case notes) D and his common law wife failed to feed the man's 7
year-old child, Nelly, and she died from starvation
...
Held: Where there is the duty to act, failure to do so can lead to liability even for
murder if the necessary mens rea is present
...
The courts
regarded the parent's duty towards a young child as so self-evident as not to require analysis or
authority
...

Miller 1983: (also in case notes) The defendant had been out drinking for the evening
...
He awoke and saw that the cigarette had started a small fire
...
At his trial, the prosecution did
not rely on the acts of the defendant in falling asleep with a lighted cigarette as being reckless,
but relied solely on the grounds that upon becoming aware of the fire he failed to take steps to
put the fire out or call the fire brigade
...
He was therefore liable
for his omission to do so
...
Point of Law: D and E where convicted of murder after the trial judge had said to
the jury that if ‘drowning was a virtual certainty and D and E appreciated that, then they must

have had the intention of killing the V
...

Problematic Omission cases
•

•

Khan & Khan 1998: Duty of care Facts: D and E were drug dealers in Birmingham
...
She ingested a large
amount, lapsed into a coma and was obviously in need of medical assistance
...
They were charged with murder and convicted
of manslaughter
...
The
crown’s case was that the appellants’ omissions to summon medical assistance formed the
basis of liability
...

Evans 2009: The appellant was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter along with her
mother in relation to the death of her 17 year old sister, Carly Townsend who died of a heroin
overdose
...
The appellant, her mother and
Carly all had a history of heroin addiction
...
The appellant moved in with her mother after her boyfriend was sent to
prison
...
Carly self-injected the heroin
and then developed symptoms which the appellant, from her own experience, recognised as
being consistent with an overdose
...
Carly died
...

Held: The judge was wrong to leave the jury to decide the issue of duty of care
...
However,
the mis-direction did not render the conviction unsafe
...
She had in effect created a dangerous situation and failed to take
action to reduce the risk by summoning medical assistance which would have saved her
...

It is right that you should be responsible for anyone related to you…
...
but
The prosecution in Pittwood was appropriate
...
but
It is always clear when an omission will give rise to liability… but
It is morally wrong not to rescue someone who is in danger…
...

When does voluntary duty end?
If medical treatment is futile, there is no obligation on a doctor to continue it
...
Liability without fault – not even
negligence’
Callow V Tillstone (1890): A butcher was convicted of selling unfit meat despite the fact that he had
had the meat certified as safe by a vet before the sale
...

GB Pharmaceutical Society v Storkwain (1986): The defendant pharmacist had filled a prescription,
but unknown to him the prescription was forged
...

Re Prince (1875): The appellant was charged with taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of
the possession of her father contrary to s
...
He knew
that the girl was in the custody of her father but he believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was
aged 18
...
The offence was one of strict liability as to age and
therefore his reasonable belief was no defence
...
Part of building collapsed
...
Charge ‘material deviation from approved plan’ Carrying out works
in a manner likely to cause injury or risk of damage’
...

Convicted
...

Privy Council held: that the relevant regulations were strict liability and convictions upheld
...

1
...

2
...

3
...

4
...

5
...

Sweet v Parsley 1970 (Truly Criminal): A school teacher let her house out to students
...
She was unaware of this activity
...
5(6) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965
...
Held: The House of Lords looked at the
common law before the statute was made
...
Thus the presumption that statutes do not change the common law was
applied in addition to the presumption that mens rea is required where the offence is a true crime as
oppose to a regulatory offence
...
When one tin was found to contain a small caterpillar
...
It was an offence of strict liability and was an example of one of the regulatory
offences
...

Due diligence: To use this defence a person must prove that they took all reasonable precautions
and exercised all due diligence to avoid an offence being committed
...
16(2) Licensing Act 1872
...
The appellant therefore believed he was off duty
...
He
was convicted and appealed contending that knowledge that the officer was on duty was a
requirement of the offence
...
Wright
J: "There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of
the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced
either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals
...
It is plain that if guilty knowledge is not necessary, no care on the part of the publican could save
him from a conviction under section 16, subsection (2), since it would be as easy for the constable to
deny that he was on duty when asked, or to produce a forged permission from his superior officer,
as to remove his armlet before entering the public house
...
"
Cundy v le Cocq ( 1884): The appellant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated
person under s
...
The appellant appealed on the grounds that he unaware of
the customer's drunkenness
...
S
...
It was therefore taken that the omission to refer to mens rea was
deliberate and the offence was one of strict liability
...
"
Pollution: Alphacell v Woodward: he appellant factory owner was convicted of causing polluted
matter to enter a river under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951
...
The appellant was unaware of
the pollution and it was not alleged that they had been negligent
...


Building regulations: Gammon Ltd v AG of Hong Kong 1985: (above)

Food hygiene Callow v Tillstone (1890) (above)
Wildlife/countryside: Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), Kirkland v Robinson 1987: possessed a
bird (Goshawk)
Firearms: Howells 1987:
Drugs: Warner v MPC 1968
Greater vigilance: Vigilance means being watchful in case of danger
...

Evaluation:
1
...
However, it also has the capacity to protect the public from harm as
demonstrated in the case of Alphacell V woodward, as it protects multiple members of society
...

Businesses are often liable, as opposed to individuals
...
An authority which supports this view is
Alphacell V Woodward
3
...
The benefits of this are it makes it easier to find,
however it tends to be down to the wording of the statute which judges may wrongly interpret,
therefore not applying the law parliament intended
...

Breach of Human rights?
European Court of Human Rights

Salabiaku v France 1988: the court decided it wasn’t
...
They had told
their staff not to sell ticket to anyone under the age of 16, they also trained their staff and told them
to ID people they were not sure about
...
D 1 was out the back and D2 was not on the premises
...

Absolute liability:
Winzar 1983: Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983): The defendant was removed from a hospital
by police and was then arrested and found guilty of being drunk on the highway, even though the
police officers had put him there
...

B V DPP (1999): this shows that the courts still have the same presumptions as before
...
He had sat next to a 13
year old girl on a bus and repeatedly asked her to perform oral sex with him
...
The boy
believed the girl was over 14
...
1(1) was
of strict liability in relation to the age of the victim
...
Moreover, the law had moved on since this decision
favouring an honest belief of the defendant which was not dependent upon the belief being
reasonable
...

The defendant's conviction was quashed
...

•
•
•
•
•

S
...
3: Appropriation
S
...
5: Belonging to another
S
...


Appropriates S
...
”
Morris 1983: Conjoined appeals both involving the switching of price labels in supermarkets
...
The question for the Lords to decide was whether an appropriation required the assumption
of all rights of an owner and also if there was an appropriation at what point in time did this occur
...
The appropriation took place
when there was an adverse interference with or usurpation of the rights of an owner which was at
the point of switching the label, not at the point of taking the goods from the shelf
...
The
defendants argued that their handling of the goods took place before they had been appropriated
(and so were not stolen goods that could be 'handled')
...
He had assumed the rights of the owner when he took the
defendants to the house and invited them to buy the furniture
...

Lawrence (1972): D a taxi driver in London took an Italian tourist who spoke little English to a
destination where the tourist offered D £1 but D took a further £6 from the tourist’s wallet
...
D argued that the tourist had consented to the taking of the
money from the wallet by holding it open and so D could not have appropriated it
...
Belief or absence of belief that the owner consented to the appropriation may be
relevant to the issue of dishonesty but not to the issue of appropriation
...
D obtained authority from the
manager to supply the goods
...
Held: There was an appropriation even though he
acted with the authority of the shop manager
...
The consent of the owner was irrelevant in deciding whether an appropriation had
taken place
...


Although there were already two trust accounts in existence in which J was named as the
beneficiary, she opened a third trust account, and paid in a cheque belonging to J
...
Held: Taking of
property with the owner's consent could amount to appropriation, for "appropriation" was an
objective description of the act done irrespective of the mental state either of the owner or the
accused; but, in the instant case, the paying in of the cheque by G into a trust account of which J was
the sole beneficiary could not be regarded as an assumption by G of any of J's rights as owner
...

The employer was elderly and had “weakened mental faculties”
...
Held: this was a valid gift of the money in civil law
and there could be no appropriation and thus no conviction for theft
...

Kendrick & Hopkins (1997: DD were in charge of a residential home and obtained power of attorney
of the affairs of a 99 year old resident, they cashed her investments and persuaded her to make a
new will
...


Property S
...
He was given permission to draw anatomical specimens held by the Royal
College of Surgeons
...
During the
course of his visits he met Lindsay who was a junior technician working for the RCS
...
These included three human heads, six arms, ten
legs part of a brain and three torsos
...
Both Kelly and Lyndsey were convicted of theft and appealed contending the body parts did not
constitute property lawfully in the possession of RCS
...
Convictions upheld
...

Welsh 1974: D, a drive accused of drink driving, poured his own urine specimen down a sink when the
relevant police officer was out of the room
...
Guilty of Perversion of course of justice
Oxford v Moss 1979: D a university student obtained a copy of an examination paper read it and then
replaced it
...
Held:
Confidential information held on a piece of paper could not amount to intangible property according to
the true interpretation of s 4 of the Theft Act 1968
...
The applications contained false information
...
Held: D was
guilty of obtaining property, i
...
the cheques, 'with the intention of permanently depriving' the council of
them even though the cheques themselves would ultimately go back to the council
...
A cheque as a piece of paper, a cheque form, is
personal property and may be stolen, regardless of the balance in the account upon which the cheque is
drawn
...
In each case D made statements which
he knew to be false
...
D was charged with
dishonestly obtaining and attempting to obtain advances by way of mortgages (1968 Act, s 15(1))
...
On the contrary, that
chose in action was extinguished or reduced and a chose in action was brought into being representing a
debt in an equivalent sum owed by D’s bank to D
...

Not guilty
...

Held: Export quotas, although not ‘things in action’, were a form of "other intangible property" because
such quotas may be freely bought and sold
...
Furthermore, the defendant
had acted outside the scope of his authority to deal with the company’s quotas and had dishonestly
appropriated property belonging to the company
...
Ownership means legal title to property
...
Control means you can say what happens to the
thing
...
The mechanic parked the car on
the road outside the garage
...
He argued he owned the car and therefore it did not belong to another
...

Section 5(3) Theft Act says you can be convicted of theft even if you have acquired legal ownership if you
have been given the property to deal with in a particular way
...
The defendant spent the money on
Christmas presents and left the flat without paying the gas bill
...
5(3) TA 1968 the cheques had been given with a clear obligation to apply the money for payment of the
gas bill
...
None of the flights
materialised and none of the money was refunded
...
in a
particular way' within s 5 (3) (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)
...
He but put the money in his
personal account, with the Trust's permission, but used it for his own purposes, thereby appropriating
the money
...

By putting the money in his own account, it was still the proceeds of those notes and coins
...


AG’s Ref
...
Held: D received property by another’s mistake
...
She was obliged to restore the value of the
chose in action, providing the transfer of funds was made under a fundamental mistake
...
D knew that the bookmaker had made
a mistake, but he kept the money
...
" It would be dishonest if
your grocer gave you too much change and you kept it, but it was not dishonest in the case of a
bookmaker
...


Dishonestly s2 Theft Act
Ghosh: gives a two part test for dishonesty which is; 1
...
Did D consider his actions to be dishonest by the standards
of reasonable honest people (subjective test)?
Section 2(1) a says D will not be dishonest if he believes he has in law the right to deprive the other of the
property on behalf of himself or a third person
Section 2(1) b says D will not be dishonest if he believes he would have the other’s consent if the other
know of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
...

Holden: D took tyres from his former employer in the belief that he had permission to remove the tyres,
or believed it would have been granted had he sought it
...
The question was whether H had, or might have had,
the necessary honest belief, reasonably or not
...
One tyre was flat, as was the battery
...
D thought it was abandoned property and so he could take it
...


Intention to Permanently Deprive S
...
6 of the theft act: A person appropriating property belonging to another without
meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the
intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to
dispose of regardless of the other’s rights
...


Velumyl (1989): D, a company manager borrowed £1050 from safe at work without authority and
contrary to company rules and leant it to a friend
...
Held: D's intention to repay the money (with different notes or coins) did not afford V a
defence
...
He had no intention to return the
objects he had taken
...

Lloyd & Others (1985): D a projectionist at a cinema secretly borrowed films and lent them to friends
who made illegal copies of them
...
Held: Borrowing property could only amount to "intending to permanently
deprive the owner of it" if the intention of the borrower was to return the property in such a changed
state that it had lost all its practical value
...

Lavender (1994): D took two doors from a council house and used them to replace damaged doors in his
girlfriend's house, owned by the same council
...
6(1) D had treated the doors
as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights, and that was enough
...

Fernandes 1996 D, a solicitor transferred money from his clients’ account to a higher yielding account in
an attempt to cover his personal debts
...
Section 6 could apply to a person in possession or control of another’s property
who, dishonestly and for his own purpose, dealt with that property in such a manner that he
knew he was risking its loss
...




---