The defendant worked as a shop assistant. He had persuaded the manager to accept in payment for goods, two cheques which he knew to be stolen. The CA had decided that since the ownership of the goods was transferred on the sale, no appropriation of property belonging to another had taken place. Held: An appropriation … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Gomez: HL 3 Dec 1992
NoControl, No Appropriation The defendant appealed her conviction for theft of 50,000 pounds which she was overpaid after she had submitted false claims for overtime. Held: She had not appropriated the money as required by the Act. She had had no control over the making of payments or the account from which payments were made, … Continue reading Darroux v Regina: CACD 4 May 2018
The defendants had been accused of theft. One switched labels on a joint of pork in a supermarket, and the other presented the meat with the now cheaper label for purchase.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. There can be no conviction for theft . .
The offence created by section 1(1) of the 1968 Act involved four elements: ‘(i) a dishonest (ii) appropriation (iii) of property belonging to another (iv) with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it.’ Judges: Megaw LJ Citations: [1970] 3 All ER 933, [1970] 3 WLR 1103, [1971] 1 QB 373 Statutes: Theft Act … Continue reading Regina v Lawrence (Alan): CACD 1970
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the pleaded facts, Mr Chopra and Mr Nazir were the directing organ of Bilta under its constitution. … Continue reading Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others: SC 22 Apr 2015
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners. Held: The acts complained of were so close to the activities which a solicitor would normally undertake, that … Continue reading Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others: HL 5 Dec 2002
The defendant, a taxi driver, had without objection on the part of an Italian student asked for a fare of andpound;6 for a journey for which the correct lawful fare was 10s 6d. The taxi driver was convicted of theft. On appeal the main contention was that the student had consented to pay the fare. … Continue reading Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: HL 30 Jun 1971
The appellant pleaded guilty to six offences of furnishing false information, contrary to the Theft Act 1968. She was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under the 2002 Act, with a view to a confiscation order being considered. She had made . .
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .
There was no privilege against self incrimination in a civil action for a fanciful fear of criminal charges. . .
The deception required as an element of the offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, could be constituted by acquiescence, where there could properly be said to be a continuing representation, under which the person deceived had . .
In 2009 Baroness Uddin was interviewed by the Metropolitan Police with regards to whether she had committed an offence under the Theft Act 1968 or the Fraud Act 2006 in claiming Parliamentary expenses. In March 2010 the Crown Prosecution Service . .
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
(The British Virgin Islands) The defendants appealed against convictions for theft and misconduct. Being civil servants they had entered in to contract with companies in which they had interests. . .
