Theft

• The definition of theft comes from S1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 and is D is guilty of dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving another of it
• S3(1) Theft Act 1968 defines appropriation as assuming the rights of an owner 
• R v Morris says D only has to appropriate one right 
• Pitham and Hehl show that property does not have to be removed to be appropriation
• Lawrence v MPC says that even if the victim consents, there can still be appropriation if it wasn't genuine
• Hinks shows that accepting a valid gift can amount to appropriation
• S3(1) Theft Act 1968 says initially innocent appropriations can become dishonest 
• S4(1) Theft Act 1968 says property includes 5 things 

  1. Money 
  2. Real 
  3. Personal 
  4. Things in action 
  5. Intangible 
• Real property can only be stolen in 3 ways 

  1. Severs anything considered part of the land 
  2. Tenant takes a fixture or structure from land let to him 
  3. Someone legally entrusted abuses power
• Welsh shows that bodily fluids can be property 
• Kelly and Lindsay show corpses aren't property unless being used for science or educational purposes
• Oxford v Moss shows information can't be stolen
• S5(1) theft Act 1968 defines belonging to another as possession or control of the property or proprietary rights in the property 
• Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates shows that if an owner gives up their property it is still theirs until their intention is fulfilled
• S5(3) Theft Act 1968 shows that if D is given property and is under a legal obligation to use it in a certain way,it still belongs to the original owner
• S5(4) Theft Act 1968 shows if D is given the property by mistake, they have the legal obligation to return it as it is treated as belonging to the original owner
• S2 Theft Act 1968 gives the situations of things that are not dishonest
• S2(1)(a)shows that D is not dishonest if they believe they have a legal right to the property (Robinson) 
• S2(1)(b) shows D is not dishonest if they believe the owner would have consented if they knew (Holden) 
• S2(1)(c) shows D isn't dishonest if they believe the owner wouldn't be able to be found even after taking reasonable steps (Small)
• S2(2) shows that D may be dishonest even if they are willing to pay for the property
• Ivey gives the test for dishonesty and that is by figuring what D believed they were doing and if that is dishonest according to what a reasonable person would think
• Barton and Booth confirms the test used in Ivey
• S6(1) defines the intention to permanently deprive as intending to treat the property as one's own to dispose of which is shown in Lavender
• S6(1) says that borrowing can amount to the intention to permanently deprive if property is kept for such time and in such circumstances that makes it equivalent to taking
• Lloyd shows that borrowing can amount to the intention to permanently deprive if the goodness, value and virtue are removed 
• Velumyl shows that the exact property must be returned