Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

land law lecture notes, Lecture notes of Law

this contains some brief notes from a land law lecture

Typology: Lecture notes

2020/2021

Uploaded on 03/04/2022

realest-trilliest
realest-trilliest 🇬🇧

1 document

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Term 2, lecture 4: theft
Definition:
Section 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 and “thief” and “steal” shall be constructed
accordingly”
Appropriation:
The actus reus – this is appropriation of property belonging to another
(a) appropriation – assuming the rights of an owner. Doing something in relation to their property.
Assumption of the rights of owner?
* McPherson 1973 – a whisky into a bag, the right to posses the property, use it, consume it, destroy
it and sell it, give it away and move it.
- Issues having arisen with this concept.
Assumption of just one right of the owner or more of all the available rights?
- For example if D picked up the property (possessed it) does it also have t o be shown that he used,
consumed it or threw it away?
* Dip Kaur v Chief constable for Hampshire 1981
- D picked up shoes in a shop, knew was mislabelled, hoped she would be charged the lower price.
HELD: the appropriation occurred when she took the shoes to the cashier, not when she first picked
them up.
The current law is that assumption of one right is sufficient:
* Morris Anderton v Burnside 1984
- D switched labels of shop articles on the supermarket shelf to buy a cheaper price. Held: the right
to label the goods is a right of the owner. Ds assumed that right by switching the labels.
- Not necessary to show other rights were assumed
* Gomez 1993
Does “Assumption” require a physical act in relation to the property?
- An offer to sell on ebay without possessing the property (no physical act)
* Pitham and Hehl 1976 – D offered to sell Pitham the furniture of X (who was in prison) – the offer
was appropriation (So P could be a handler of stolen goods)
Transferring credit from a bank account (no physical act)
- D’s act of arranging a bank transfer from charity funds was an appropriation despite no physical act
but
- Compare with Briggs v R 2004 D received relatives into them transferring money from house sale,
into her bank account.
* Darroux 2018 – D care home manager made false overtime claims.
- When paid, no appropriation as a company employed by the Housing Association running the
home made the instruction to the bank, not D.
- D should have been charged with fraud.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download land law lecture notes and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Term 2, lecture 4: theft Definition: Section 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 and “thief” and “steal” shall be constructed accordingly” Appropriation: The actus reus – this is appropriation of property belonging to another (a) appropriation – assuming the rights of an owner. Doing something in relation to their property. **Assumption of the rights of owner?

  • McPherson 1973** – a whisky into a bag, the right to posses the property, use it, consume it, destroy it and sell it, give it away and move it.
  • Issues having arisen with this concept. Assumption of just one right of the owner or more of all the available rights?
  • For example if D picked up the property (possessed it) does it also have t o be shown that he used, consumed it or threw it away? *** Dip Kaur v Chief constable for Hampshire 1981**
  • D picked up shoes in a shop, knew was mislabelled, hoped she would be charged the lower price. HELD: the appropriation occurred when she took the shoes to the cashier, not when she first picked them up. **The current law is that assumption of one right is sufficient:
  • Morris Anderton v Burnside 1984**
  • D switched labels of shop articles on the supermarket shelf to buy a cheaper price. Held: the right to label the goods is a right of the owner. Ds assumed that right by switching the labels.
  • Not necessary to show other rights were assumed *** Gomez 1993** Does “Assumption” require a physical act in relation to the property?
  • An offer to sell on ebay without possessing the property (no physical act) *** Pitham and Hehl 1976** – D offered to sell Pitham the furniture of X (who was in prison) – the offer was appropriation (So P could be a handler of stolen goods) Transferring credit from a bank account (no physical act) - D’s act of arranging a bank transfer from charity funds was an appropriation despite no physical act but
  • Compare with Briggs v R 2004 D received relatives into them transferring money from house sale, into her bank account. *** Darroux 2018 –** D care home manager made false overtime claims.
  • When paid, no appropriation as a company employed by the Housing Association running the home made the instruction to the bank, not D.
  • D should have been charged with fraud.
  1. Can there be an appropriation where the owner consents to the assumption of their right/s over their property?
  • Theft is usually by stealth, but what is it is with consent of the owner – can this be appropriation? *** Lawerence v Metropolitian police commissioner 1971**
  • wanted to take a taxi on a journey somewhere. Ride was 50p. The taxi driver took a pound from her purse and she allowed that, and he lied and said the fair was 7 pounds. Was appropriation despite V’s consent. *** Eddy v Ninman 198** 1 – D put goods in shop wire basket case. No conviction as shop consented. *** Dip Kaur v Chief constable for Hampshire 1981** – Cashier consented to D buying shoes for incorrect lower price, so no appropriation The main case for a long time was Morris; Anderton v Burnside 1984 – swapping label case. *** Gomez 1993 – current law**
  • D assistant manager of electrical shop persuaded V manager to sell goods to the value of 17k to X accomplice
  • D persuaded V to accept payment by 2 cheques. Where there is a true consent:
  • In Gomez consent was obtained by deception
  • Consent was not “true consent” V’S COULD RESCIND The contract due to deception.
  • But can there be an appropriation by D where V truly consents and the property therefore becomes D’s under the civil law? *** Mazo 1997** – D maid given 37k by her elderly employer whose mind was deteriorating, although she was of capacity
  • No evidence of any undue influence, deception or coercion.
  • According to civil law = Valid transaction, so title passed to D because of V’s consent. Held no appropriation of gift. Hinks 2000 – overruled Mazo
  • D persuaded a 53 year old man of limited intelligence to give her 60k and a TV.
  • The trial judge did not put the issue of cocecrion, undue influence of lack of capacity to the jury.
  • The HL that an appropritation could be established despite the fact that D obtained an absolute indefisable right to property via the gift.
  • Thus consent does not prevent an assumption of the rights of an owner/appropriation. Critcism of Hinks:
  • In Hinks Lord hobhouse asked how D can be said to have appropriated property belognign to another if at the moment he gains possession it becomes his property The effect of this decision? Appropritation is now a netural concept AR – appropation, property, belonging to another MR – dishonesty, intention to permantely deprive. Approtiation by keeping or dealing with the property as owner
  • D gains property innocently (appropritation but not MR)