Muhammed Awais
P1 M1 – Theft, Robbery and Burglary
Theft –
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; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
Sarah could be charged with the theft act 1968, she could be charged with this section as it states, ‘a person is
guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it; and ‘thief’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly’. There are 5 elements which need
to be proved, first element which needs to be proved is appropriation, and appropriation is when you take
anything without the right of the owner. If someone takes anything which isn’t there’s they are assuming they
have right over the property, but they don’t. The case of R V Morris which is about when the defendant changed
the price labels in a store. The defendant was arrested after she had paid a lower price for the property, he paid a
lower price because he changed the label. The persecution concluded that Morris had no right to change the
prices, only the owner of the shop has such right. Also another case is R V Lawrence, in this case the defendant
who had a new Italian person who sat in his taxi. He gave the taxi driver the address which was written on a
piece of paper. When the claimant arrived he gave the taxi driver one pound but the taxi driver said that it
wasn’t enough, so he reached out and took a further six pounds from the claimant. The correct fare for the taxi
ride 10s. 6d. the court concluded that the driver was guilty of theft, but later it was countered and the conviction
was upheld. It was upheld as the defendant said that the claimant had consented for him to take the money. But
it was upheld and the judge said “An appropriation can take place notwithstanding the consent of the owner.”
So the defendant was prosecuted for theft. Therefore in the case of Sarah, Sarah appropriated Emma’s
property as she took the phone from the bag. Sarah had assumed that she had all the rights of the owner
as she removed the phone from Emma’s unzipped bag. Due to this Emma will be guilty under the Theft
Act S.3.
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Lawrence-v-MPC.php
Secondly the court will need to prove section 4 of the theft Act 1968 which is referred as property. ‘Property
includes money and all other property, real or personal, which includes things such as things in action or other
intangible property’. There are various types of property, there’s real property which means land. Then there is
intangible property which is a type of property you cannot touch. An example of an intangible property is
copyright of song lyrics. In the case of Oxford V Moss, the defendant took an exam paper from the school, he
read the exam paper and then returned it back to the school. His intention was to gain knowledge so he can cheat
in the exam. The court concluded that the confidential information on the exam paper didn’t mount to intangible
property under the theft act 1986. Also another case is R V Akbar, in this case the defendant who was a teacher
stole an exam paper so that she can help her students cheat in the exam. She didn’t return the exam paper which
meant that it had mounted to theft. The court concluded that she was guilty of theft as she took the exam paper
without permission. In the case of Emma, Sarah took property which had belonged to Emma. The
property which she took was a real property which is a mobile phone. Sarah will be found guilty on the
Theft Act 1968 S.4, as Sarah had taken the property of Emma without her permission. Therefore Sarah
had assumed that she had the right of the owner when she took the phone out of the bag.
Thirdly another thing the prosecution must prove is S.5 of the theft act 1986, which is referred to as ‘belonging
to another. Under S.5 of the theft act 1986 the law is ‘ property shall be regarded as belonging to any person
having possession or control of the property, or having on the property any proprietary right or interest…..’
sometimes someone can be found guilty of stealing his own property due to the wider meaning of the law. For
example in the case of R V Turner, where the defendant had taken his car into a garage for some repairs. When
he had gone to pick up the car it was left outside of the garage with the keys still inside. Therefore he left
without paying for any repairs. The court concluded that he was liable for the theft of his own vehicle, as the
vehicle was in control of the garage as they were doing repairs on the vehicle. Another case is R V Rostron, in
this case the defendant took golf balls which were in the water in a golf court, he recovered the balls which the
golfers had lost while playing. The court concluded that this was theft as the golf ball belonged to the golf club.
P1 M1 – Theft, Robbery and Burglary
Theft –
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; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
Sarah could be charged with the theft act 1968, she could be charged with this section as it states, ‘a person is
guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it; and ‘thief’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly’. There are 5 elements which need
to be proved, first element which needs to be proved is appropriation, and appropriation is when you take
anything without the right of the owner. If someone takes anything which isn’t there’s they are assuming they
have right over the property, but they don’t. The case of R V Morris which is about when the defendant changed
the price labels in a store. The defendant was arrested after she had paid a lower price for the property, he paid a
lower price because he changed the label. The persecution concluded that Morris had no right to change the
prices, only the owner of the shop has such right. Also another case is R V Lawrence, in this case the defendant
who had a new Italian person who sat in his taxi. He gave the taxi driver the address which was written on a
piece of paper. When the claimant arrived he gave the taxi driver one pound but the taxi driver said that it
wasn’t enough, so he reached out and took a further six pounds from the claimant. The correct fare for the taxi
ride 10s. 6d. the court concluded that the driver was guilty of theft, but later it was countered and the conviction
was upheld. It was upheld as the defendant said that the claimant had consented for him to take the money. But
it was upheld and the judge said “An appropriation can take place notwithstanding the consent of the owner.”
So the defendant was prosecuted for theft. Therefore in the case of Sarah, Sarah appropriated Emma’s
property as she took the phone from the bag. Sarah had assumed that she had all the rights of the owner
as she removed the phone from Emma’s unzipped bag. Due to this Emma will be guilty under the Theft
Act S.3.
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Lawrence-v-MPC.php
Secondly the court will need to prove section 4 of the theft Act 1968 which is referred as property. ‘Property
includes money and all other property, real or personal, which includes things such as things in action or other
intangible property’. There are various types of property, there’s real property which means land. Then there is
intangible property which is a type of property you cannot touch. An example of an intangible property is
copyright of song lyrics. In the case of Oxford V Moss, the defendant took an exam paper from the school, he
read the exam paper and then returned it back to the school. His intention was to gain knowledge so he can cheat
in the exam. The court concluded that the confidential information on the exam paper didn’t mount to intangible
property under the theft act 1986. Also another case is R V Akbar, in this case the defendant who was a teacher
stole an exam paper so that she can help her students cheat in the exam. She didn’t return the exam paper which
meant that it had mounted to theft. The court concluded that she was guilty of theft as she took the exam paper
without permission. In the case of Emma, Sarah took property which had belonged to Emma. The
property which she took was a real property which is a mobile phone. Sarah will be found guilty on the
Theft Act 1968 S.4, as Sarah had taken the property of Emma without her permission. Therefore Sarah
had assumed that she had the right of the owner when she took the phone out of the bag.
Thirdly another thing the prosecution must prove is S.5 of the theft act 1986, which is referred to as ‘belonging
to another. Under S.5 of the theft act 1986 the law is ‘ property shall be regarded as belonging to any person
having possession or control of the property, or having on the property any proprietary right or interest…..’
sometimes someone can be found guilty of stealing his own property due to the wider meaning of the law. For
example in the case of R V Turner, where the defendant had taken his car into a garage for some repairs. When
he had gone to pick up the car it was left outside of the garage with the keys still inside. Therefore he left
without paying for any repairs. The court concluded that he was liable for the theft of his own vehicle, as the
vehicle was in control of the garage as they were doing repairs on the vehicle. Another case is R V Rostron, in
this case the defendant took golf balls which were in the water in a golf court, he recovered the balls which the
golfers had lost while playing. The court concluded that this was theft as the golf ball belonged to the golf club.
