Theft Case Questions

The case of [blank_start]MORRIS[blank_end] indicates that D can assume any of the rights of the owner, not all.

The case of [blank_start]GOMEZ[blank_end] says there can be an appropriation even where V has consented to D taking the property.

The case of [blank_start]HINKS[blank_end] allows an appropriation where the property was a gift to D

The case of [blank_start]KELLY AND LINDSAY[blank_end] states that body parts can be personal property if they have been treated for teaching purposes.

The case of [blank_start]TURNER (No.2)[blank_end] states that a person can steal their own property.

The case of [blank_start]WOODMAN[blank_end] states that property can belong to another even if they did not know it was there.

The case of [blank_start]DAVIDGE v BUNNETT[blank_end] states that where money is given to D for a specific purpose, when D spends that money one something else, the money belongs to V again and it is theft.

The case of [blank_start]HALL[blank_end] states that where money is given to D but there is no legal obligation to spend it on a specific thing, it is not theft if D fails to spend it on what was expected.

The case of [blank_start]ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE (NO.1 OF[blank_end] 1983) states that where property is received by mistake and there is a legal obligation to return it, it is theft if D does not.

The case of [blank_start]SMALL[blank_end] states that D's belief in the negative definition of dishonesty must be genuine rather than reasonable.

The case of [blank_start]GHOSH[blank_end] lays down the test for dishonesty in theft

The case of [blank_start]VELUMYL[blank_end] states that where D picks up property intending to steal it, then changes his mind and replaces it, he has the intention to permanently deprive.

The case of [blank_start]LLOYD[blank_end] states that where D returns property without it's goodness, virtue and practical value, he had the intention to permanently deprive.

The case of [blank_start]DPP v LAVENDER[blank_end] states that where D took property intending to sell it back to V, he still had the intention to permanently deprive.