Theft Essay Model Answer

• Prima facie, the defendant (state name) could be criminally liable for the offence of theft of (state what has been taken). Theft is defined under s.1 Theft Act 1968 as 'dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.'
• The actus reus is set out in sections 3-5 and the mens rea in sections 2 and 6.
• Firstly, the d must have appropriated the property. This is defined by s.3(1) as 'any assumption of the rights of the owner' and can take many forms such as selling, destroying and consuming. From the case of Morris, only one right needs to be appropriated.
• S.(4) states that property 'includes money and all other property, real or personal including things in action and other intangible property.'
• The d must have dishonestly appropriated the (state what it is) and this must belong to another. Under s.5(1) 'property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having in it any proprietary right or interest.'
• The mens rea of theft would now need to be considered. Firstly, dishonesty. S.2 of the Theft Act doesn't give any definition of dishonesty but does provide three honest exceptions when the D would not have been acting dishonestly. S.2 (1)(a) the defendant has an honest belief that he has a right in law (Robinson), s.2(1)(b) the defendant has an honest belief that he has the owner's consent (Flynn) and s.2(1)(c) the defendant has an honest belief that by taking reasonable steps the owner could not be found (Small).
• If none of the honest exceptions apply then as confirmed in R v Barton and Booth, the test from Ivey v Genting's casino should be applied:

  (1) What was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts? and

  (2) Was the defendant's conduct dishonest according to the Standards of ordinary decent people?
• Finally, it must be proven that the d dishonestly appropriated the (state what was taken) from (state who from) with the intention of permanently depriving them of the items. S.6(1) states that this intention can be found when someone treats the property as theirs to 'dispose of' (DPP v Lavender).
• In conclusion, the d is/is not guilty of theft. If convicted, as theft is a triable either way offence, the d could face up to 7 years imprisonment.