Law

• Theft


  A person will be guilty of theft if they: Dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it
• The Theft Act 1968 sets out the maximum penalty of 7 years for theft
• Theft is a triable either way offence
• Theft steps


  • Appropriation
  • Property
  • Belonging to another
  • Dishonesty (mens rea)
  • Intention of permanently depriving (mens rea)
• Appropriation


  1. Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation

  2. Rights of an owner: Selling, Destroying, Possessing, Consuming, Using, Lending, Hiring
• Key cases on appropriation

  • R v Pitham and Hehl (1997)
  • R v Morris (1983)
• Appropriation and consent


  Appropriation can take place with the owner's consent
• Cases on appropriation and consent

  • Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police (1972)
  • Gomez (1993)
  • Hinks (2000)
• Property


  Includes money, personal property, real property, things in action, and other intangible property
• Cases on property


  • Kelly and Lindsay (1998)
  • Oxford v Moss (1979)
• Belonging to another


  Includes where a person owns the property, has possession or control over it, or has a proprietary right or interest over it
• Key cases on belonging to another

  • Turner (no 2)(1971)
  • Woodman (1974)
  • Webster (2006)
  • Hall (1972)
  • A-G Ref (No1 of 1983)(1985)
  • Gilks (1972)
• Dishonesty


  A person's appropriation is not dishonest if they believe they have the right to deprive the other, would have the other's consent, or the owner cannot be discovered. Dishonesty is determined by the standards of ordinary decent people.
• Cases on dishonesty


  • Ivey v Genting Casino (2017)
  • Barton and Booth (2020)
• Intention to permanently deprive


  Includes intending to treat the thing as their own, even if they plan to replace it later. Borrowing is not theft unless it is for a period and circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
• Cases on intention to permanently deprive

  • Velumyl (1989)
  • DPP v Lavender (1994)
  • Lloyd (1985)
  • Eason (1975)
• The Theft Act 1968 has been evaluated, with the key issues being: clarity and certainty around appropriation, the wide definition of property, the surprising results from the broad definition of 'belonging to another', the change from the Ghosh test to the Ivey test for dishonesty, and the question of whether the intention to permanently deprive needs to be included.