Key Cases - Actus Reas Theft

These are the Key Cases that you need to know for the actus reas (AR) of Theft.
(Quick Key - AR = Actus Reas, D = Defendant, V = Victim, ‼ = Comments, HoL = House of Lords, CoA = Court of Appeal)

R v Lawrence (1971)
V got into a taxi, and took a journey which should have cost 50p. V gave £1, and D said it wans't enough. V offerred his wallet, and D took £7.
D was convicted, although he argued that it wasn't theft as V had offerred his wallet.
‼ Appropriation can occur with consent

R v Morris (1983)
D went into a supermarket and switch 2 price labels to show lower prices.
D cpnvicted of theft. D argued he hadn't assumed all the rights of the owner, just 1. The HoL said that only 1 right need be assumed, not all.
‼ Appropriation requires adverse interference with owners rights. Appropriation cannot occur with consent.

R v Gomez (1991)
Fradulent cheques were used to buy goods, which the manager knew about, although he still accepted them as payment.
D charged with theft, although he had consent. D convicted.
‼ Solves conflict. Following Lawrence principle - Yes an appropriation occured, even though consent was given. Following Morris - No appropriation occured as the goods had been taken with consent. Morris overruled.

R v Hinks (2001)
D befriended a naive man who had a low IQ. Over a period of about 8 months D accompanied the man on numerous occasions to his bank, where he withdrew money and deposited it into Ds account.
D convicted, as it was held that although the man was mentally capable of understanding ownership and making a vlid gift, D had used him and taken advantage of him.
‼ This principle could change every case - who's to say when a legitimate gift has taken place, and when someone has used someone else?

Oxford v Moss (1979)
Student stole a test paper and copied down the answers, before returning the paper.
Wasn't charged with theft as he gave the paper back, so no intention to permanantly deprive.
‼ Answers are counted as information, so cannot be stolen.

R v Turner (no. 2) (1971)
D left his car at a garage for repairs, agreeing that he would pay for the repairs when he collected the car. The garage left the car outside their premises and D used a spare key to take the car without consent.
D convicted. CoA held that the garage were in possession or control of the car at the time, so D could be guilty of stealing his own car.
‼ When does someone become in possession or control? When does that possession control end? Wouldn't it be theft of the fees owned to the garage, not theft of the car?

R v Hall (1972)
D was a travel agent who recieved deposits from cleints for airtrips to the US. D paid deposits into the firms general account, but never organised any tickets, and was unable to return the money.
D convicted of theft, but on appeal this was quashed as when D recieved the deposits he was under no obligation to deal with it in a particular way.
‼ CoA stressed each case depends on facts. Why wouldn't D be under obligation to do something with the money? It was for tickets, not to be deposited into the general account.

Davidge v Bunnet (1984)
Flatmates paide money to one of the flat members for bills. D spent it on himself instead.
D convicted - money was given for a specific purpose.
‼ Surely, if D in this case was under obligation, D in above case would also be under obligation?

R v Wain (1995)
£3k was raised for charity, and D was permitted to transfer the money to his own account and pay for it in. D used money for his own purposes.
D under obligation to retain the 'at least the proceeds of the sums collected' - Convicted of theft.
‼ Again, wouldn't Hall be under obligation if this D was?

Attorney General Reference (no. 1 of 1983)
Ds salary was paid into her account by transfer, except on one occasion she was overpaid.
D was acquitted, and the prosecution appealed asking the CoA to rule that a person in this situation who dishonestly decided not to repay the money would be guilty.
‼ D was under obligation to repay te moeny, so she had to repay them. But, asking to rule that if she had spent the money she would be guilty, so she should be guilty now is harsh and unfair. What if we said that I was going to kill my boyfriend, but didn't, so I should be found guilty of murder?

R v Gilks (1972)
D placed a bet on a horse ('Fighting Scot') and the race was won by a different horse ('Fighting Taffy'). Manager mistakenly paid the winnings to D.
D acquitted - s5(4) = 'property acquired by mistake needs to be returned but obligation to return must be a legal one' (contract)
‼ In gambling there is no contract formed, so there is no theft.