Important
UNIT 4 extras
The first is kind of obvious but
people forget it. s1(2) states that in terms of appropriation
"its immaterial as to whether the appropriation is made with a view to
gain or for the thief’s own benefit" meaning motive is irrelevant when establishing dishonesty. This
accounts for situations where D may steal to give back to someone which V may
have stolen originally.
It’s also important to remember that D doesn’t need to gain anything
from the theft, so destroying property belonging to another could also be
theft. If D throws away property but doesn’t actually destroy it, theft
occurred also because they are still appropriating it and disposing the owners
rights. This could occur when I throw a waterproof camera into the sea. There is
still an appropriation, and a disposal of the owners rights to determine who
and what interferes with that property - not forgetting risking the loss, R v Fernandes.
So theft occurs providing all elements
are satisfied even though the defendant doesn’t
gain anything.
S5 Abandonment Some cases where D may
not be liable for theft, usually where property may have been abandoned.
However it can only be abandoned where there is no true legal owner.
Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates - The
appellant took six bags containing used clothing and other miscellaneous items
from outside charity shops owned by Oxfam and the British Heart Foundation. He
intended to sell the items at a car boot sale. The bags from Oxfam were taken
from a bin outside the shop in which people could leave donated items. The bags
from BHF were simply placed outside the door to the shop. D Claimed they were
not belonging to anyone.
Held:
The bags taken from the bins outside Oxfam were their property.
ü With
regard to the bags taken from outside BHF, no
possession or proprietary interest could be taken to arise from them simply
being left in the vicinity
ü BUT
it didn’t follow that the items had
been abandoned - the donor intended the items to be a gift to the BHF. The items still
belonged to the donor until BHF took possession.
So, property shall only really be regarded as being abandoned
and NOT belonging to another if there is no true legal owner. There will be no
true legal owner if there is no way anyone can be in possession or control
of it at that moment in time.
Lost property Lost property is
still regarded as belonging to the loser. However, where (the owner cannot
be found by taking reasonable steps or D has the belief it cannot) the finder
of the property has better title to the items than the owner of land on which
the items are found:
Bridges
v Hawkesworth - Claimant found money in D’s
shop and said to keep it until someone claimed it. After three years no one
claimed it and D refused to give it back to the claimant. It rightfully belonged
to the claimant
UNLESS
D IS A TRESSPASSER
- Hibbert v
McKiernan
The defendant collected lost balls on a golf course
owned by a golf club. He then sold the balls to golfers coming on to the
ground. He did not have permission to be on the golf course or to collect the
balls. He was convicted of theft and appealed contending that the balls were
abandoned and as a finder of the balls he had a better right to the balls than
the golf club as landowner, since the balls were on the surface of the ground
rather than underneath.
Held: His conviction for theft was upheld
since he was a trespasser (had high fences)
However, where the items are found
under the surface of land, the land
owner has a better title than the finder Waverly
Borough Council v Fletcher – D found a
medieval brooch with a metal detector under the ground but it remained property of the council.
No comments:
Post a Comment