A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
Property (s.4(1) TA 1968)
Includes money and all other real, or personal, including things in action and other intangible property
Property
Drugs that the victim unlawfully possesses - Smith
Money
Refers to coins and banknotes (physical), a cheque is not considered money - Davis
Things in action (Property)
Intangible property: cannot be physically handled or possessed but can be legally enforced
Examples: Bank account
Goddard LCJ in Davenport: 'The only person who has money in the bank is the banker'
Chan Man-Sin v AG for Hong Kong: 'The right to sue the bank for amount deposited, including an agreed overdraft = debt'
Thingsinaction
Cheques
Blank cheque not intended to be presented - Roach
If D obtained cheque and intends to cash it out
It is not theft - Clark
Property
Gas - White
Water - Ferens v O'brien
Electricity
Does not amount to property so it cannot be stolen - Low v Blease
Confidential information, though it has value and can be sold, is not property
Confidential information
D not guilty of theft when he unlawfully acquired exam paper and returned it after he read the content - Oxford v Moss
Real property - Land
Cannot be stolen unless it falls within one of the exceptions of s.4(2)
s.4(2)(b): Those who are not in possession of land
Where D is a trespasser it is theft to takethingswhichformpart of the land - rose bush/roof tiles
s.4(2)(c): Tenants in possession
Where tenantsremovesomethingformingapart of theland that will be an offence - D appropriated a garden shed or fireplace
Things growing wild
Can be stolen in limited situations
s.4(2): rules relating where Dsteals a whole plant they uproot
s.4(3): rules relating to flowers, fruits or plants - such property is capable of theft where Dtakes it forreward or for sale or any other commercialpurposes
s.4(4): Wild Creatures
D can steal that which a gamekeeper has killed as it has been reduced into possession
Cresswell: held badgers lured to traps by food were not reduced by possession
Corpses
Buriedcorpses are notproperty and cannot be stolen - Foster v Dodd / Hayne's case
Before being buried - corpsenotpropertybutcanbecomeproperty if someonehas a right of possession over the body - DoodewardvSpence: there was property in a still-born foetus of 2 headed child
Appropriate - s.3(1) : Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appriopriation and this includes, where he has come by the property without stealining it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it.
short definition : Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner
Assumption of just one right owner
Mcpherson : court held that the assumption of owners right is the right where property can be used, consume, destroy, sell, give it away, lend, move or priced.
appropriation of property includes an offer to sell - Pitham
Pitham : offering someone else’s property for sale was appropriation
Appropriation
Where D has assumed any one right, D will be considered to have appropriated property
Assumption of a right
Sufficient for appropriation, not necessary to assume all the rights
Morris : Switching the price labels on goods was considered to be appropriation - it was the assumption of an ownership right.
Gomez : HL confirmed Morris, now sufficient that D assumed a right of the owner, not necesarily all the rights had not yet assumed
however, old law assumed that one right of assumption was insufficent
Hircock - Court held that the act of selling the car 2 weeks later it was acquired constituted appropriation : considered the point at which no further rights to the car could be assumed by D
Dip Kaur v Chief Constable for Hampshire : Held that appropriation occured when she took the shoes to the cashier.
Later Appropriation (Relevant Appropriation)
s.3(1) : possible to make a later appropriation by keeping the property or dealing with it as owner - Thompson v Nixon : Later assumption by keeping the rabbit food he found intending to hand it in
Later Appriopiration by failure to return it - Omission
Broom v Crowther : held that leaving stolen item on shelf was not appropriation as he only kept it for a few days, therefore mossion suffices
contrast case :
Gresham : it was said that failing to bring a banking mistake subsequetly discovered to the attention of the bank might not equate ‘keeping’, as some postive act is required
other examples where theft have a positive act and no physical possession of the property :
where D transfers money from V’s account
Hilton : despite not physcially handling the property, the court deemd the instruction to transfer the funds was a positive act - thus, D found guilty of theft
D had control over a bank account belonging to a charity and instruted the bank to transfer money from the account to his perosnal account
where D transfers money from V’s account
contrast case :
Briggs v R : held that there was not an appropriation as appropriation requires a physcial ac rather than a remote action triggering a tranfer
by a deception, D indcued her elderly relatives to transfer the money from the proceeds of their house sales into her bank account.
where D transfers money from V’s account
contrast case :
Darroux : Held that in D submitting the montly forms for additionally pay, D had not assumed the rights of an owner regarding the bank account which she had no control. Therefore, no appropriation by D as the Housing asscociation running the car home made the instruction to the bank
How to distinguish Hilton & Briggs case?
can be argued that the distinction in :
Briggs - victims’ instruction to the bank meant that the conduct was not by D.
whereas
Hilton - it was D ho instructed the bank and caused the money transfer
Appropriation
Where rights of owners with the owner's permission
Lawrence: 'Held that the absence of consent was not a necessary requirement of appropriation and that the element of appropriation may be satisfied whether the owner has consented to the property being taken'
Contrast cases
Eddy v Ninman: Shopper placed items in basket, but intention was to steal. Held no appropriation because shoppers authorised to put items in the basket.
Morris: Lord Roskill concluded that appropriation 'involved not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owners but an act by way adverse interference with or usurpation of those rights'
Current law - conflict of whether appropriation can occur despite consent
Gomez
D assistant manager persuaded V to accept stolen cheques from his accomplice. Assumption of rights can occur with V's consent.
It is possible to appropriate property even where that property is a valid gift
Mazo
Narrow interpretation of Gomez led the court to conclude that there will be no conviction of theft where D had received a valid gift