Theft

• D may be liable for theft, defined in Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
• The Actus Reus is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another.
• Appropriation can be a straightforward outright taking or treating property as your own (e.g. selling property (PITHAM and HEHL). S3(1) states that it means the assumption of the rights of the owner, and can take place even when the property is innocently acquired, if D then keeps/deals with it. Other examples are label swapping (MORRIS), and V consenting through deception (LAWRENCE, GOMEZ)
• IF RELEVANT: Appropriation can take place even when there is a gift made with consent and without deception, if it is obtained through coercion (HINKS)
• IF RELEVANT: Appropriation can take place even if D leaves the property behind having taken it, (CORCORAN AND ANDERTON)
• IF RELEVANT: S3(2) states that D will be innocent if they purchase stolen goods in good faith.
• Under S.4(1), PROPERTY can be tangible such as money, or intangible such as things in action, for example licenses and patents (AG of HONG KONG v CHAN NAI-KEUNG)
• IF RELEVANT: Things that don't constitute property include,
• IF RELEVANT: Anything picked from the wild for reward or sale under S.4(3)
• IF RELEVANT: Wild creatures unless in captivity, confidential information (OXFORD v MOSS), under S.4(4)
• IF RELEVANT: Electricity as in LOW v BLEASE
• IF RELEVANT: Bodies/body parts unless used for exhibition/teaching purposes as in KELLY and LINDSAY, however, bodily fluids CAN be stolen, as in WELSH
• Under S,5(1) property belonging to another means the victim has possession or control of it (RICKETTS v BASLIDON MAGISTRATES COURT)
• IF RELEVANT: Under S.5(3) if a person is under an obligation to retain and deal with property in a particular way, that property is regarded as belonging to another, (DAVIDGE v BUNNETT HALL)
• IF RELEVANT: Under S.5(4) if a person is given something by mistake, keeping it is keeping property belonging to another as the victim has a 'proprietary interest' (WEBSTER)
• IF RELEVANT: An owner can be convicted of stealing their own property, if it is temporarily in the possession of another (TURNER)
• IF RELEVANT: A person can be in control of property even though they do not know it is there, such as an abandoned property (WOODMAN)
• For the Mens Rea, under S.2 D must be dishonest. The 2-stage test established in IVEY v GENTING CASINOS is used. Firstly, the jury must decide what was the actual knowledge or belief of D as to the facts (a subjective test), and secondly, in that context, the jury must decide whether D's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the reasonable, ordinary, decent person (an objective test)
• IF RELEVANT: A person's appropriation will NOT be dishonest if under; S.2(1)(a) there was the honest belief that he has a legal right to it, (SMALL and HOLDEN), OR under S.2(1)(b) there was an honest belief that the owner would consent (HOLDEN), OR under S.2 (1)(c) there was an honest belief that the owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps. The honest belief does not have to be a reasonable belief, just honest (BOGGELN v WILLIAMS)
• Under S.6(1) D must have an intention to permanently deprive, which means an intention to dispose of or treat as your own (DPP v LAVENDER)
• IF RELEVANT: An intention to sell or ransom property back to V will be an IPD (RAPHAEL)
• IF RELEVANT: An intention to replace with identical property will not be an IPD provided it is absolutely identical (VALUMYLL)
• IF RELEVANT: An intention to remove the value from the property will be an IPD (LLOYD)
• IF RELEVANT: An intention to abandon the property will NOT be an IPD unless the intention was to change it so as to lose all of its value, (MITCHELL)
• IF RELEVANT: A conditional intention to deprive is not an IPD,(EASOM), but will result in a conviction for attempted theft
• IF RELEVANT: Under S.6(2), there is an IPD where D intends to part with the property, to be returned under a condition which may not be able to to be performed, (FERNANDES)
• To conclude, D will be guilty of theft