Oxford v Moss
- Theft: ingredients of offence
- information
- intangible property
- deemed intention to permanently deprive under s.6 (1) if goodness or virtue substantially or essentially lost
Oxford v Moss (1979) is an English criminal law case, dealing with theft of intangible property: information. A divisional court of High Court, to whom the legal question of the taking of a proof (final draft) exam paper was referred by magistrates, and which is not one of binding precedent, ruled that information could not be deemed to be intangible property and therefore was incapable of being stolen within the Theft Act 1968.
Facts
The defendant, Moss, was a University student and managed to obtain a proof copy of his forthcoming exam paper. It was accepted that he always intended to return the proof itself, and therefore could not be convicted of theft of the proof itself; however, he was charged with stealing information belonging to the Senate of the University.
The case was heard by the Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrate, and it was argued by the prosecution that the information itself was property capable of being stolen because it had attached to it a proprietary right of confidence, and once this was breached, the information itself had been stolen. It was argued by the defence that Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 did not define a class of intangible property beyond a chose in action, and therefore information per se was not protected by the Theft Act 1968.
The magistrate ruled that confidential information was not a form of property as defined by Section 4, and that confidence consisted in the right to control the publication of the proof and was a right over property rather than property in itself.
Judgment
The divisional court considered whether confidential information falls within the definition contained in s4(1) of the Theft Act, and were referred to authorities dealing with trade secrets and matrimonial secrets. The judges said that those cases dealt with, more squarely, confidentiality yet the appropriate remedies for breach had been injunction or damages rather than criminal. The conclusion was drawn that the definition of "intangible property" was not broad enough to include confidential information, and the prosecutor's appeal was dismissed.
Critique
Professor Richard Card disagrees with the outcome as opines it has omitted some reasoning:
Although confidential information in an examination is not property and cannot be stolen, if a student surreptitiously borrows a college examination paper a week before the examination, intending to copy it and then to return it, his appropriation of the piece of paper will be regarded under s 6(1) as done with the intention of permanently depriving the college authorities of it (the paper). The borrowing is clearly for a period and in the circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal because, if the paper is returned as intended, all its goodness and virtue will have gone.[1]
Notes
- ^ Card, Cross and Jones: Criminal Law 16th Ed., Prof. Richard Card (ed.), Reed Elsevier (printed by CPI Bath, Bath, UK), 2004. at 9.67 (p405)
External links
- "Judgment". Archived from the original (doc) on 8 December 2010.
- v
- t
- e
- Indictable
- Either way
- Summary
- Regulatory (lowered mens rea)
- Statutory
- Common law
- Actus reus
- Causation
- Mens rea
- Intention (criminal law)
- Intention in English law
- Recklessness
- Criminal negligence
- Corporate / Vicarious / Strict liability
- Omissions
- Self-defence
- Duress
- Necessity
- Loss of control
- Consent
- inc. participation in a sporting event
- Medical procedures
- Prevention of crime
- Lawful excuse
- Insanity
- Diminished responsibility
- Intoxication
- Category:Criminal defences
the person
- Homicide (Murder / Manslaughter / Corporate manslaughter / Infanticide)
- Unlawful killing
- Child destruction
- Concealment of birth
- Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm
- Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
- Common assault
- Attempting to choke, &c. in order to commit any indictable offence
- Assault with intent to rob
- Robbery
- Assault with intent to rape
- Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension
- Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty
- Battery
- Kidnapping
- Child abduction
- False imprisonment
- Harassment
- Offences Against the Person Act 1861
- Treason
- Riot
- Violent disorder
- Affray
- Unlawful assembly
- Fear or provocation of violence
- Harassment, alarm or distress
- Public Order Act 1986
- Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
- Nuisance
- Causing Public nuisance
- Outraging public decency
- Effecting a public mischief
- Keeping a disorderly house
- Preventing the lawful burial of a body
- Breach of the peace
- Rout
- Forcible entry
- Accessory (legal term)
- Misconduct in a public office
- Misfeasance in public office
- Abuse of authority
- Perjury of oath
- Dereliction of duty
- Arson
- Dishonesty
- Cheating (law)
- Burglary
- Robbery
- Theft
- Criminal damage
- Squatting
- Trespass
- Taking without owner's consent
- Deception
- Handling stolen goods
- Misappropriation of funds
- Blackmail
- Extortion
- Cybercrime
- Theft Act 1968
- Theft Act 1978
- Fraud Act 2006
- Fraud by abuse of position
- Conspiracy to defraud
- Fare evasion
- Webcam blackmail
and cheating
- Bribery
- Perjury
- Perverting the course of justice
- Witness intimidation
- Witness tampering
- Misprision of treason
- Jury tampering
- Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension
- Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty
- Harboring a fugitive
- Encouraging or assisting a crime
- Escape from lawful custody
- Obstruction of justice
- Obstruction of a police officer
- Wasting police time
- Refusing to assist a constable
- Sedition
- Espionage
- Contempt of court
- Fabrication of false evidence
- Rescuing a prisoner
- Contract
- Tort
- Property
- Wills
- Trusts and estates
- Evidence
- Criminal procedure
- English law portal
- For obsolete aspects see History of English criminal law table