theft

• Theft under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 involves dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive
• The actus reus of theft includes appropriation (s.3), property (s.4), and property belonging to another (s.5)
• The mens rea of theft involves acting dishonestly (s.2) and having the intention to permanently deprive (s.6)
• Dishonesty is not present if the individual believes they have a legal right to the property, believe they have the owner's consent, or if the owner cannot be found
• Barton and Booth's two-part test for dishonesty: considers D's state of knowledge or belief in the facts and whether D's conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people
• In theft cases, appropriation includes any assumption of the rights of the owner, even if it occurs later (e.g., D discovers something interesting and later decides to steal it)
• Cases like Gomez establish that any assumption of the rights of the owner constitutes appropriation
• Lawrence case highlights that consent is irrelevant in theft cases, such as when a taxi driver takes extra money
• Property under s.4 includes money and any property that is real but excludes things living in the wild
• Belonging to another under s.5 means the property belongs to the person who has possession or control; property received by mistake still belongs to another
• Turner case example: taking one's own car from a garage can still be considered theft if the garage had the right to retain it until payment
• Intention to permanently deprive under s.6 refers to D's intention to treat the property as their own to dispose of as they please, regardless of the others' rights