Read Law Right

In the previous article, I gave you an example of initial notes following a first reading session with a new textbook chapter. The first reading session is always going to be less detailed because we focus on structure and themes, introduction and conclusion. We use these subsequent sessions to get into the detail.

We will build on the previous example from the law of theft, where we learned that theft is:

“the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.”

Theft Act 1968, s1

What does it mean when it refers to “belonging to another”? It sounds straightforward, but in Michael Allen’s textbook* (12.2.1.2) the discussion goes on for some six pages!

The first job, then, is to get a handle on the structure of this section.

There is a brief introductory paragraph. Then discussion separately of “possession”, “control” and “abandonment”. Proprietary rights and interests are discussed next. Then follows a longer section called “Special cases”, mentioning trust property, property received under an obligation, and property ‘got’ by another’s mistake.

We can begin to see how this section includes some of the elements that I mentioned in an earlier post: in this example, discussion of main principles then exceptions.

Example notes from 30 minutes on this section:

• Allen, Criminal Law, 16th ed, chapter 12 “Offences under the Theft Act”, pp525-531.
• Introduction: “belonging” is defined in the TA, s5 and refers to anyone having “possession” or “control” of an object, or a “proprietary right or interest” in it.
• Following sections explain in more depth what those terms mean.
• Possession: owning an object and having possession or control of it are distinguished.
• Interesting example – you can ‘steal’ from the owner, or from someone the owner has loaned the object to (person in possession), or from someone else the borrower allowed to use the object (person in control). Theft can take place against any or all of three victims. (525)
• The three characters can even steal the object from each other! (526)
• You can steal your own stuff, like your own car from the repair garage, R v Turner No 2 (1972) 55 Cr App R 336. You can steal illegal stuff too – e.g. drug user stealing drugs from supplier, R v Smith [2011] EWCA Crim 66.
• Control: this doesn’t require victim to be the owner or even have knowledge of the specific object. Example: landowners and lost objects, e.g. golf balls, can be stolen from the landowner. In control of the land and whatever is on it.
• Abandonment: You still own things you have lost, stealing if someone finds your lost wallet and keeps it. But if deliberately abandoned it doesn’t belong and cannot be stolen. “Property will be regarded as abandoned only when the owner is indifferent as to what becomes of it.” (527)
• Throwing something in the rubbish bin is not abandonment, Williams v Phipps (1957) 41 Cr App R 5. “Abandonment is not readily inferred by the courts”. (527)
• Following sections on proprietary rights and interests and “special cases” involving “trust property”, “equitable interests” and other issues. Seems to move beyond the central principle.
• Final part on “Property got by another’s mistake”: s5(4). Covers situations like overpayment of wages, where D deemed to steal the money if they don’t return it. Depends when D realises mistake, and what they did with the money meanwhile. (530)

Comment:

A few points:

• The notes mostly are written in my own words, with very few direct quotes. Writing in your own words forces you to think about the content, interacting with what you’ve read. This supports both your understanding and retention.
• These notes aren’t particularly well-developed. They aren’t intended to be particularly detailed. Their purpose is to aid your comprehension, to give you a permanent record of your reading and to give you an initial place to refer to instead of referring back to the textbook.
• Nevertheless, there is some scope to add personal reflection to highlight anything surprising or complicated, and to record potentially useful quotes.
• These notes aren’t perfect and they’re not intended to be. For example, it is worthwhile to note any cases that illustrate a point, as I did with the Turner and Smith cases. Arguably I could have mentioned cases on landowner control, e.g. Hibbert or Rostron, but these notes are intended to be quick and easy to make at the end of a reading session – e.g. 5 minutes.
• If you are happy marking your book, it is helpful to underline particular points as you go. They will make it easier to read fluently when you are reading because you’ll be confident to find that point later. Your notes won’t simply need to be your recollections.
• You could write in a more abbreviated style than I have here, e.g. no need to use full grammatical sentences in your own private notes.

The transition from the main principle to the (rather complicated) exceptions is fairly clear in this example – if you missed it, it is everything from the heading “Proprietary rights and interests” onwards. You will notice that I only made one note after that, on overpayment of wages, since that struck me simply as more interesting.

Allen himself mentions, at 12.2.1.2.2, (the “Proprietary right or interest” section), that full explanation is “outside the scope of this book.” You will deal with proprietary rights, trusts and equitable interests when you study the other property law topics, like land law, wills and trusts or equity and trusts. Look out for these clues that can help you discern where the main explanation ends and the tangential issues are beginning.

This will help you focus on understanding the main principle. You should remain aware that there are exceptions, complications and tangential issues. Make a brief note where to look them up if you need them, for example, when you get a seminar or assignment question that requires you to explain whether a particular item qualifies as property.

*Michael Allen, Criminal Law (16th ed, Oxford 2021)