Criminal Law - Actus Reus of Theft II - Mindmap in University Law

Created by: Alasdair
Created on: 22-11-20 16:41

View mindmap

2. Actus Reus of Theft II
- R v Gomez confirms consent of owner (or lack of it) is irrelevant in deciding whether or not an appropriation has taken place.
- Professor J C Smith on Gomez
  - Ratio decendi
    - decision is consent of owner to act done, or fact that he authorised act, is irrelevant
    - Fact consent was obtained by false representation is nowhere treated as material
  - Effect on law of theft
    - full effect on law of theft can be appreciated only when account is taken of approval given to ruling in Morris
      - full effect on law of theft can be appreciated only when account is taken of approval given to ruling in Morris that assumption of anyof rights of an owner amounts to appropriation
      - it may amount to theft even though that act will not deprive owner permanently, or at all, of his property
      - It is sufficient defendant has a present intention to deprive by some future act
    - Merely switching labels in supermarket, dishonesty intending to buy article for lower price, amounts to complete offence of theft, even though enterprise is immediately interrupted or abandoned
    - Must couple extraordinary ruling with proposition that consent and authority are irrelevant and we reach this conclusion:
      - Anyone doing anything whatever to property belonging to another, with or without authority or consent of owner, appropriates it
        And, if he does so dishonestly and with intent, by that act or any subsequent act, permanently to deprive, he commits theft.
      - Object of Theft Act was to get away from troublesome concepts of taking and carrying away but reduces actus reus of theft almost to vanishing point.
        Acts which common sense would regard as attempts or merely preparatory acts are full offence of theft.

Get Revising

Criminal Law - Actus Reus of Theft II

Comments

Similar Law resources: