Theft Caselist....

Case Facts
11.1 APPROPRIATION

Ratio Decideni

Pitham + Hehl

R v Morris

D sold furniture belonging to another person. This was held to be an appropriation. The offer to sell was an assumption of rights of an owner and the appropriation took place at that point. D had switched the price labels of 2 items on the shelf in a supermarket. He had then put one of the items into a basket and took the item to the checkout, but he had not gone through the checkout when he was arrested
CONSENT TO THE APPROPRIATION

An appropriation can be made by assuming the right to sell anothers property.

You only need to assume ONE right of the owner, not all the rights.

R v Lawrence

R v Gomez

An Italian student who had just arrived in England, took a taxi ride. It should have cost 50p, but D took 7 when the student offered his wallet to D to take the correct money for the fare Gomez was the assistant manager of a shop. He persuaded the manager to sell electrical goods worth over 17,000 to an accomplice and to accept payments by 2 cheques, telling him they were as good as cash. The cheques were stolen and had no value. Gomez was convicted of theft of the good.
CONSENT WITHOUT DECEPTION

There can be an appropriation where V does not genuinely consent to the taking.

An assumption of any rights of the owner is sufficient for an appropriation. There is no need for adverse interference with or usurpation of some right of the owner.

R v Hinks

D and stepdad had alot to drink. Heard talking and laughing but then there was a shot. D phoned police saying he had just murdered his dad. D said they had been seeing who was fastest at loading and firing a gun. He had loaded his gun the fastest and his dad said he hasnt got the guts to pull the trigger. D said I didnt aim the gun. I just pulled the trigger and

Forseight of consequences is evidence of intention

Theft Caselist....
he was dead
11.2 PROPERTY

Kelly and Lindsay

Ds were miners who were on strike. They tried to prevent another miner from going to work by pushing a concrete block from a bridge into the road along which he was being driven to work by a taxi. The block struck the windscreen on the taxi and killed the driver.
11.3 BELONGING TO ANOTHER POSSESION OR CONTROL

Probability is important in deciding whether a consequence was intended.

Turner (No 2) (1971)

(foresight of consequences)

R v Woolin
( foresight of consequences)

Matthews and Alleyne

D left his car at a garage for repairs. It was agreed that he would pay for the repairs when he collected the car after the repairs had been completed. When the repairs were almost finished the garage left the car on the roadway outside their premises. D used a spare key to take the car during the night, without paying for the repairs. D was convicted for theft of the car. D lost his temper with his 3 month old son and threw him towards his pram. The child struck his head on a hard surface and died from a fractured skull. Ds had thrown V into the middle of a wide river from a bridge. The V had told them he could not swim. They watched him dog paddle towards the bank but left before seeing if he reached safety. The V drowned.
TRANSFERRED MALICE

With

Jury can find intention, death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of Ds actions and D appreciated this.

SAME AS WOOLIN

R v Latimer

D aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub because that man had attacked him. The belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. Latimer was guilty of an assault against the woman, although he had not meant to hit her.

An intention aimed at one person can be transferred to an unintended victim.

Theft Caselist....
R v Pembliton
In the course of a fight with other men, D threw a stone at some of them, but the stone struck and broke a window. Where the type of crime is completely different to that intended, there cannot be transferred malice.

COINCIDENCE OF ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

Thabo Meli v R

Ds attacked a man and believed they had killed him. They then his body over a low cliff. In fact, the man had survived the attack and died of exposure when unconscious at the foot of the cliff.

Provided that the required mens rea and actus reus were combined in a series of acts, a defendant could be guilty.