Theft

• s1 Theft Act 1968


  A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. 
• s2 Theft Act 1968

  Dishonesty. No definition of this word in the Act but s2 does give three situations when the defendant would not be classed as dishonest:​

  ​

  • Believes he has a right in law to the property​
  • Believes he would have the owners consent​
  • Believes the owner could not be found by taking reasonable steps
• s3 Theft Act 1968


  Appropriation – ​

  s3 (1) ‘assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’​

  ​

  Includes selling, destroying, possessing, consuming, using, lending the property.​

  ​

  Must take over owners rights
• s4 Theft Act 1968


  Property includes:​

  •  money ​
  • real (land/buildings) ​
  • personal (e.g. books, cars etc.)​
  • things in action (e.g. bank account)​
  • intangible property (e.g. patent, ​

  ticket)
• s5 Theft Act 1968


  Belonging to another – i.e. a person with:​

  ​

  • Possession ​
  • Control ​
  • Proprietary interest
• s6 Theft Act 1968

  With intent to permanently deprive.  For example:​

  ​

  • Taking goods and selling them ​
  • Taking cash and spending it
• S3 ​Appropriation - Pitham & Hehl (1977)


  Offering to sell someone’s furniture without their permission amounted to appropriation.  ​

  It did not matter whether the furniture had been removed.  
• S3 Appropriation - Morris (1983)


  Def. switched labels in a supermarket and put in his trolley. Tried to go through checkout. ​

  Possession of goods in trolley was appropriation.
• S3 ​Appropriation - Lawrence (1971)


  Can be appropriation –despite the apparent consent of the owner. Non-English speaking student asked a taxi driver how much and when told it was expensive offered £1 but driver said not enough took £6 from student (normal fare 50p).  ​

  Driver said the student had consented and there was no appropriation.​

  Both CA & HL’s said there was appropriation.
• S3 Appropriation​ - Gomez (1993)


  Theft can take place where consent in the property passing of the property was obtained by a false representation. G, assistant manager of shop, persuaded his manager to sell goods worth £17,000 to his accomplice who paid by cheque.  ​

  G knew the cheques to be worthless. ​

  HL’s stated that where the consent was obtained by false representation there was appropriation.
• S3 Appropriation​ - Hinks (2000)


  H - 38 year old woman who befriended a man (Mr. Dolphin) with low IQ.  ​

  He gave her £60,000 and a TV.  ​

  She was convicted of theft as she had taken advantage of Mr. D.
• S3 ​Appropriation - Later assumption of rights

  s3(1) – ​

  there can still be appropriation where you later decide to keep or deal with the property as if you were the owner.  ​

  For example, keeping a library book.
• s4 Theft Act 1968 - Kelly & Lindsay (1998) 


  artists removed human body parts without permission and with no intent to return.  ​

  General rule is that no one owns a corpse.  ​

  But as parts had been dissected they could be seen as property as they had taken on different attributes.
• Intangible property - Oxford v Moss (1979)


  Not all intangible property can be stolen. student borrowed an exam paper, copied and returned it.  ​

  Court held that confidential information was not property and therefore not theft.
• Things in action - Marshall (1998)


  Things in action are rights which can be enforced in law such as a ticket.​Def. Asked people outside the tube for travel cards and resold them at a lower price.  ​

  Court held the value remaining in the cards was a thing in action which was the property of the London Underground.  Def. did not have the right to resell the tickets and not pass the revenue to the London Underground they were guilty of theft.
• S4 (3) 

  Picking wild mushrooms or plants e.g. blackberries in the wild is not theft unless it is done for reward, sale or other commercial purpose.​

  NB it is an offence to pick certain wild plants under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981​

  ​

  S4(4) cannot steal a wild animal.  However, it would be theft if you took a captive animal from a zoo.  Stealing a wild animal though could be poaching.
• Belonging to another s5 

  S5 (1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person:​

  • having possession e.g. hire car ​
  • having control​
  • having proprietary interest
• Can you be guilty ​of ​stealing your own property? - Turner (No2) (1971) 


  Def. took his car to a garage.  To avoid paying the bill he used his spare keys to take the car.​

  Court held you can be guilty of stealing your own car as the garage had the right to retain possession of the goods until the repair bill was paid.
• A person can be in ​control of ​property he does not ​know he possesses - Woodman (1974)


  Def. drove a van to a disused factory and took scrap metal. ​

  Even though the owner did not know it was there, they were in control of the site and the defendant was convicted of theft.
• Ricketts v Basildon (2010)


  Goods left outside a charity shop were not abandoned and remained the property of the person who deposited them until taken into control or possession of the charity.
• S5(3)

  Where a person receives property from or on account of another and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property, or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or other proceeds shall be regarded as belonging to another.
• Klineberg & Marsden (199)


  Defs. sold timeshares.  Took deposits stating that the money would be held in a separate account until timeshares ready.​

  They failed to pay money into the account.​

  Guilty of theft as under a clear​

  obligation to deal with the ​

  money in a specific way.  
• Wain (1995) 


  Def. raised money for a charity but did not hand over the money. ​

  Court held he had collected money on trust for the charity and had committed theft as the money belonged to​

   the charity.
• Davidge v Bunnett (1984) 


  Cheques given to pay the gas bill were used to buy presents.​

  Court held that they were guilty of theft as they had a legal obligation to use the cheques to pay the gas bill.
• S5 (4) Theft Act 1968


  Where a person gets property by another’s mistake they have a legal obligation to give it back – keeping it may be theft.
• AG Ref (No1 of 1983) 


  defendant is under an obligation to pay back employer if over paid by mistake.
•  dishonesty

  NB – no definition of dishonesty in the Act.
• s2 

  There are three situations under which the defendant has not acted dishonestly:​

  • Believes he has a right in law​
  • Belives he would have the owner’s consent​
  • Believes the rightful owner could not be found by taking reasonable steps​

  If there is a genuine belief in the above then they will be guilty of theft – it does not matter whether this belief is correct or reasonable.
• Robinson (1977) 


  Def. ran a clothing club and was owed £7.00 by the victims wife.  ​

  Def. threatened the victim and during a struggle the victim dropped £5.00.  Def. took this. ​

  Not guilty as def had genuine belief in law that he had a right to take the money owed. 
• S2(2)


  NB – you can still be considered dishonest even though you are willing to pay for the property.
• Dishonesty is decided by applying the 2 part Ivey Test:​

  Take account of what the defendant knew or believed regarding the facts at the time of the offence​

  And​

  Would the defs. Actions be seen as dishonest by the standards of ordinary people.​
• S6(1)Theft Act 1968


  A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other to permanently lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having intention of permanently depriving the other of it :​

  • If his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights​
  • If borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking for disposal
• R v Raphael (2008)


  Defs took the victims car by force and said he could buy it back.​

  They had the intention to permanently deprive as they were only going to return the vehicle on the condition payment was received.
• DPP v J (2002)


  Def. borrowed and broke headphones then gave them back.  ​

  ​Court held this amounted to an intent to permanently deprive.
• Lloyd (1985)


  Def. worked in a cinema.  He took some films, copied them and  returned them.  ​

  ​Court held no theft as this did not amount to an intention to permanently deprive.
• Velumyl (1989)


  • Def. took money from a safe at work on a Saturday and lent to a friend.​
  • He returned the money on Monday.​
  • In the meantime there was a spot check which revealed the money was gone.​
  • Theft?​
  • Yes as he had intended to put back different money so had IPD for original money.
• Lavender (1994)


  • Def. asked the council to replace damaged doors but they refused.​
  • Def. took two doors from another unoccupied council property with intent to use them until the council replaced the doors.​
  • Theft as there was an intention to permanently deprive.
• Corcoran v Anderton (1980)


  Def. forcibly tugged handbag. Even though owner did not let go this amounted to appropriation.