That is clearly dishonest. .
Intention To Permanently. This is once again when John decides to keep the briefcase, as it is a more expensive one than his own.
It is submitted that John is liable for theft of the briefcase.
Chequebook.
Appropriation is now closely linked with one of the mens rea elements dishonesty. Therefore, what needs to be proven is whether property belonging to another has been dishonestly appropriated'. .
For an appropriation, John must assume the rights of owner in the property (S.3 (1) of the Theft Act 1968). By removing the cheque making it, payable to himself and paying it into his account John is assuming Buildwell Ltd's rights as the owner of the credit in its account. John had appropriated two items of property. (R v. Gomez (1993) 1 ALL ER 1). Section 4(1) of the TA 1968 including things in action. In this case it is Buildwell Ltd's credit balance and Buildwell Ltd s overdraft facility should they have one and the bank have to use it to honour the cheque. Both of these things are things in action as they are both intangible property, which Buildwell Ltd could enforce by suing the bank. Both clearly belong to another (i.e. Buildwell Ltd).
John clearly has an intention to permanently deprive (R v. Velumyl (1989) Crim LR 299) as he intends to deprive Buildwell Ltd of the credit balance and overdraft facility in their account. The final question to consider therefore is whether he is dishonest. The test for dishonestly in R v. Ghosh may be relevant here. It is submitted that most ordinary, honest people would consider that writing out a cheque in favour of oneself and forging the owner's signature would be dishonest and also that John is likely to realise that it would be so regarded.
An alternative argument that John could use is that he believes that he had the legal right to deprive the company of its property, as he was owed the moneys .
For services rendered. If he honestly believes this, he is not dishonest because s.
