Theft Cases

In R v Pitham and Hehl (1977), what constitutes appropriation?

• Taking property without consent

• Using a stolen credit card

• Offering to sell property belonging to someone else

• Switching price labels on goods

Answer explanation

In R v Pitham and Hehl, appropriation includes offering to sell property belonging to someone else, as it demonstrates the assumption of rights over the property without the owner's consent.

What was the key issue in R v Morris (1983)?

• Taking money from someone who gave it willingly

• Using worthless cheques

• Switching price labels and taking goods

• Taking more money than agreed upon

Answer explanation

The key issue in R v Morris (1983) was about switching price labels on goods and taking them, which constituted theft. This act misrepresented the value of the items, leading to the correct answer being 'Switching price labels and taking goods'.

In Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1972), why was taking more money than agreed upon considered theft?

• Because the victim was unaware

• Because consent doesn't negate appropriation

• Because the money was counterfeit

• Because the victim was coerced

Answer explanation

In Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, taking more money than agreed was considered theft because consent to the initial amount does not negate the appropriation of the excess, making it theft regardless of the victim's awareness.

What does R v Gomez (1993) illustrate about consent and appropriation?

• Consent always negates appropriation

• Appropriation can occur even with consent

• Consent is irrelevant in theft cases

• Consent must be obtained in writing

Answer explanation

R v Gomez (1993) demonstrates that appropriation can occur even if the owner consents to the taking of their property. This case clarifies that consent does not negate the act of appropriation in theft.

According to R v Hinks (2000), when can taking money willingly given be considered theft?

• If the defendant is dishonest in accepting the gift

• If the money is counterfeit

• If the victim later regrets giving the money

• If the money is not spent immediately

Answer explanation

In R v Hinks, taking money willingly given can be considered theft if the defendant is dishonest in accepting the gift, as this indicates a lack of genuine consent from the giver.

Why was theft not applicable in Oxford v Moss (1979)?

• Because the information was not valuable

• Because the defendant had permission

• Because the information was not considered 'property'

• Because the defendant returned the information

Answer explanation

In Oxford v Moss (1979), theft was not applicable because the information taken (exam paper) was not considered 'property' under the law, thus failing to meet the legal definition required for theft.

In R v Turner (No. 2) (1971), why was the defendant convicted of theft of their own property?

• Because the property was stolen from someone else

• Because the defendant intended to sell the property

• Because the property was in the possession of another with a proprietary interest

• Because the defendant damaged the property

Answer explanation

The defendant was convicted because the property was in the possession of another person who had a proprietary interest, making the act of taking it theft, despite it being their own property.

What was the legal significance of R v Velumyl (1989)?

• Taking money with the intent to return it is not theft

• Using company funds for personal use is always theft

• Returning different money than taken constitutes theft

• Borrowing money from a friend is not theft

Answer explanation

In R v Velumyl, the court ruled that returning different money than what was taken constitutes theft, as it demonstrates an intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property, thus affirming the legal definition of theft.