Oxford v Moss
| Oxford v Moss | |
|---|---|
Liverpool Magistrates Court | |
| Subsequent action(s) | None |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Smith J & Wein J |
| Keywords | |
| |
Oxford v Moss (1979) is an English criminal law case, dealing with theft of intangible property: information. The High Court: Divisional 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
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
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.