Criminal law theft
THEFT ACT 1968
S1 DISHONEST APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER WITH INTENTION
TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE OTHER OF IT
S2 DISHONESTY
S3 APPROPRIATING
S4 PROPERTY
S5 BELONGING TO ANOTHER
S6 INTENTION OF PERMANENTLY DEPRIVING
S2 DISHONESTY
AN APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY IS ASSUMED TO NOT BE DISHONEST IF:
2(A) BELIEVES HE HAS RIGHT TO DEPRIVE THE OTHER OF IT
2(B) BELIEVES HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE OWNERS CONSENT IF THEY KNEW OF THE
APPROPRIATION
2(C) BELIEVES EVEN BY TAKING REASONABLE STEPS, THE OWNER CANNOT BE
DISCOVERED
2(2) APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY CAN STILL BE DISHONEST EVEN IF D IS WILLING TO
PAY FOR IT SUCH AS TAKING AN ITEM OUT OF SOMEONE ELSES SHOPPING BASKET.
NEW DISHONESTY TEST AMENDED IN IVEY V GENTING CASINO CASE
1. WHAT WAS THE D ACTUAL STATE OF KNOWLEDGE OR BELIEF AS TO THE FACTS ?
(SUBJECTIVE)
2. WAS HIS ACT DISHONEST BY THE STANDARDS OF ORDINARY DECENT PEOPLE?
(OBJECTIVE)
(USED TO BE GHOSH TEST)
1. WAS D DISHONEST ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF REASONABLE AND
HONEST PEOPLE ?
2. DID THE D REALISE THAT THE STANDARD IF REASONABLE AND HONEST PEOPLE
WOULD REGARD D ACT AS DISHONEST ?
S3 APPROPRIATION IS ASSUMING THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER AND USING IT AS IF IT WERE
YOUR OWN.
MORRIS CASE WHERE THE D SWITCHED THE PRICE LABELS OF TWO PRODUCTS AND
BOUGHT THE ONE WITH THE CHEAPER PRICE ON, AS ONLY THE OWNER AND THE
EMPLOYEES CAN SWAP THE PRICE LABELS, SO ONCE THEY SWITCHED THE LABELS THEY
HAD ASSUMED THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER THUS WAS APPROPRIATION. HE COMPLETED
THEFT ONCE HE LEFT THE STORE
THEFT ACT 1968
S1 DISHONEST APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER WITH INTENTION
TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE OTHER OF IT
S2 DISHONESTY
S3 APPROPRIATING
S4 PROPERTY
S5 BELONGING TO ANOTHER
S6 INTENTION OF PERMANENTLY DEPRIVING
S2 DISHONESTY
AN APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY IS ASSUMED TO NOT BE DISHONEST IF:
2(A) BELIEVES HE HAS RIGHT TO DEPRIVE THE OTHER OF IT
2(B) BELIEVES HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE OWNERS CONSENT IF THEY KNEW OF THE
APPROPRIATION
2(C) BELIEVES EVEN BY TAKING REASONABLE STEPS, THE OWNER CANNOT BE
DISCOVERED
2(2) APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY CAN STILL BE DISHONEST EVEN IF D IS WILLING TO
PAY FOR IT SUCH AS TAKING AN ITEM OUT OF SOMEONE ELSES SHOPPING BASKET.
NEW DISHONESTY TEST AMENDED IN IVEY V GENTING CASINO CASE
1. WHAT WAS THE D ACTUAL STATE OF KNOWLEDGE OR BELIEF AS TO THE FACTS ?
(SUBJECTIVE)
2. WAS HIS ACT DISHONEST BY THE STANDARDS OF ORDINARY DECENT PEOPLE?
(OBJECTIVE)
(USED TO BE GHOSH TEST)
1. WAS D DISHONEST ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF REASONABLE AND
HONEST PEOPLE ?
2. DID THE D REALISE THAT THE STANDARD IF REASONABLE AND HONEST PEOPLE
WOULD REGARD D ACT AS DISHONEST ?
S3 APPROPRIATION IS ASSUMING THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER AND USING IT AS IF IT WERE
YOUR OWN.
MORRIS CASE WHERE THE D SWITCHED THE PRICE LABELS OF TWO PRODUCTS AND
BOUGHT THE ONE WITH THE CHEAPER PRICE ON, AS ONLY THE OWNER AND THE
EMPLOYEES CAN SWAP THE PRICE LABELS, SO ONCE THEY SWITCHED THE LABELS THEY
HAD ASSUMED THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER THUS WAS APPROPRIATION. HE COMPLETED
THEFT ONCE HE LEFT THE STORE
