Theft

• X is likely to be liable with Theft under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.
• The actus reus of theft is: Appropiation of property that is Belonging to another
• Appropriation:+

  Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 provides any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner amounts to appropiation
• Section 3(1) also states that appropriation includes: where he has come by the property innocently or not without stealing it but then later assumes the right to it by keeping or dealing with it as the owner.
• Morris and Anderton - both theses cases show that only one right of the owner needs to be assumed for appropriation. In both these cases, as soon as they switched the price labels this was enough for appropriation as one right of the owner was assumed.
• Lawrence and Gomez - In both cases, the court held that if the D is given consent, this consent becomes irrelevant as soon as the D acts dishonestly and therefore the D has still appropriated.
• Hinks - This case shows that accepting a gift that has been dishonestly induced is appropriation
• Property:

  Section 4(1) of the Theft Act provides:

  Property includes: money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and all other intangible property.
• Section 4(2) of the Theft Act provides that a person cannot steal land except in the following cases:

  1. When he is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by law to sell or dispose of land belonging to another
  2. when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it
  3. He appropriates the whole or part of any fixtures or structure let to be used with the land
• Section 4(3) of the Theft Act provides that: mushrooms, flowers, foliage and fruit that have been picked from the wild cannot be property (unless they are being used for sale or commercial purposes)
• Section 4(4) of the Theft Act provides that:wild creatures cannot be property, unless they are being kept in captivity
• Oxford v Moss - Information is not property but whatever that information is on, might be property. However in Akbar, the court held the exam paper was property.
• Kelly - usually a corpse is not property, however, body parts can be property if they have acquired different attributes.
• Marshall - This case tells us that value of tickets are capable of being property.
• Belonging to another:

  Section 5(1) of the Theft Act provides property is regarded as belonging to another to any person having possession or control of it or a proprietary right or interest over it.
• Section 5(2) of the Theft Act provides that if a person receives property in a trust then it must be used for that purpose, if it isn't then it is property belonging to another.

  Wain - As money was held in a trust for charity, it needed to be used for that purpose.
• Section 5(3) of the Theft Act provides that if a person receives property from or on account of another and is under obligation to retain and deal with it in a particular way and they don't, then that property id regarded as belonging to another.
• Hall - S.5(3) did not apply as the deposits given were not for the purposes of booking a holiday but for security.
• Davidge v Bunnett - S.5(3) by spending the money on Christmas gifts meant that she did not deal with the property as she was meant to and so the money was belonging to another