Theft Cases

Question	Answer
Morris (1983)	D switched labels on a drink, HofL said he had assumed owners rights
Pitham and Hehl (1977)	D tried to sell a prisoners belongings, by trying this be assumed owners rights
Gomez (1993)	D persuaded his manager to accept cheques he knew was stolen. This was still appropriation as he did would not have consented.
Hinks (2000)	Golddigger, a gift can still be an appropriation.
Kelly and Lindsay (1998)	Dead bodies are only property sometimes.
Oxford v Moss (1979)	Knowledge can not be property.
Turner (1971)	Someone in control of something has possession.
Woodman (1974)	Even if V doesn't know about the property, it can still belong to them.
Davide v Bunnett (1984)	Money still belongs to flatmates when it should be used for a specific purpose.
Hall (1972)	No obligation to deal with it in a certain way.
AG Reference #1 (1985)	An accidental overpayment still belongs to V.
Small (1987)	D not guilty as genuinely believed the owner could not be found.
Velumyl (1989)	D intended to deprive of the actual bank notes, not the value.
DPP v Lavender (1994)	D dealt with three property regardless of the other's rights.
Lloyd (1985)	D didn't intend to permanently deprive or change its state.
Easom (1971)	Conditional intent is not enough for theft.

Resource summary

	Created by Clark Bradley about 7 years ago