Criminal 4 Theft

Definition of Theft s1(1) 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”

Actus Reus of Theft

Appropriate (s3), Property (s4), Belonging to another (s5)

Mens Rea of Theft

Dishonestly (s2), with the intention to permanently deprive (s6)

Appropriation s3(1)

“any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation”

R v Morris

The defendant “appropriated” the right of the shopkeeper to label his goods

Consent and Appropriation

Despite the natural meaning of appropriation, it is still possible to appropriate property even with the consent of the owner

R v Gomez

There could still be in appropriation where property has passed with the owner's consent as there is no need for an adverse interference with the owners' rights

R v Hinks

Gifts can be stolen as appropriation is a neutral act and the state of mind of a donor is not relevant

Later Appropriation s3(1)

Appropriation includes where a defendant has come by the property without stealing it and later assumes the right by keeping or dealing with it as the owner

The Innocent Purchaser s3(2)

Exempts a defendant from liability for theft if the purchaser purchases good in good faith and for value, later discovers that the seller had no title but decides to keep it

R v Adams

Defendant kept stolen goods which he had innocently purchased and the defence of s3(2) applied

Property s4

“includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”

Exceptions to Property

Land s4(2), wild plants s4(3) and wild creatures s4(4)

Exceptions to the Land Exception s4(2)

A person can steal land if: they authorised to sell land and sell more than they should s4(2)(a), they are a trespasser and remove anything forming part of the land s4(2)(b) or they are a tenant and remove a whole/ part of a fixture let to be used with the land s4(2)(c)

Exceptions to Wild Plants Exception s4(3)

Defendant will be guilty if the purpose of picking the plant is: a reward; to sell it; or for another commercial purpose

Exceptions to the Wild Animals Exception s4(4)

Defendant can be guilty of theft of: tamed animals, animals kept in captivity, or in the course of being reduced into possession

Smith, Plummer and Haines

Unlawful or Illegal items such as Class A drugs can be stolen

Low v Blease

Electricity cannot be stolen

Kelly and Lindsay

Corpses in hospital or for scientific or teaching purposes and blood given to a blood bank can be stolen

Oxford v Moss

Confidential information cannot be stolen

Belonging to another s5(1)

“property should be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest”

Williams v Phillips

Goods in domestic waste are not abandoned and so still belong to another

Hibbert v McKiernan

Lost golf balls had not been abandoned by their owners and so belonged to another

R v Woodman

A person can have possession or control over property even if they were not aware of its existence if they control the land upon which it was found

Parker v British Airways Board

If BA had shown intent to control the building and its contents, they could have secured possession of a lost bracelet found by a passenger

R v Turner

A person can steal their own property if they do not pay for the services done before taking it back

Property given to another for a particular purpose s5(3)

Where a person receives property from another under an obligation to deal with it in a particular way it will be regarded is belonging to the other

R v Hall

s5(3) did not apply as the travel agent’s customers did not pay him the money with an expectation for it to be used in a certain way

Davidge v Bunnett

s5(3) held that the money given to the lead tenant to pay the cost of bills was the property of the other tenants, even in a domestic or social setting

R v Breaks and Huggan

s5(3) does not have automatic application, each individual case must be considered

R v Klineburg and Marsden

s5(3) applied as the defendants had an obligation to deal with the property in a certain way

R v Wain

s5(3) applied to at least the proceeds of charity fundraising, if not the actual notes and coins

Property obtained by another’s mistake s5(4)

A person who obtains another’s property due to the other’s mistake may be obliged to restore possession or this may amount to theft

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983)

S5(4) applied where a police officer was mistakenly paid extra overtime she had not worked and therefore belonged to the police authority

Chase Manhattan Bank v Israel British Bank

It was held that the person who gives property by a mistake retains an equitable interest in that property under s5(1)

R v Shadrokh-Cigari

s5(1) applied to money given to the defendant’s nephew by mistake as the bank retained equitable interest

Dishonesty

Not specifically defined in Theft Act 1968

Dishonest - the negative aspect, s2

Three exceptions where appropriation of property is not dishonest: where the defendant has a right to deprive the other of the property s2(1)(a); the defendant would have the other’s consent if the other person knew s2(1)(b); or the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps s2(1)(c)

s2(1)(c) owner cannot be discovered by reasonable steps

defendant does not need to take reasonable steps, only believe that taking these steps would not allow the owner to be found

R v Robinson

The defendant’s belief does not need to be reasonably held, as long as it is genuine it will not be dishonest

Ivey v Genting Casinos

For dishonesty in situations other than those in s2(1): What was the defendant’s knowledge and belief as to the facts? Given that knowledge and those beliefs, was the defendant dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

Willingness to pay s2(2)

Defendant may be convicted of theft if they take property that the owner does not wish to sell, intending to pay for that property

Timing of Dishonesty (Edwards v Ddin)

Dishonest intent must be formed at the time when the goods belonged to another

Corcoran v Whent

Ownership of food passes when it is eaten, or ordered and cooked in a restaurant

Intention to permanently deprive s6(1)

Intention to treat the thing as their own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights

Interpretations of s6(1) on intention to permanently deprive

Dictionary definition of “to dispose of”, intending to treat in a manner which risks its loss and more than “dealing with” is required

The Dictionary Definition

Includes a defendant attempting to sell the owner their own property, using the owner’s property for bargaining (ransom case) or rendering the property useless

R v Cahill

Conviction was quashed as defendant’s actions did not meet the dictionary definition of" “to dispose of”

R v Lloyd

s6(1) on intention to deprive permanently covers ransom situations

R v Scott

s6(1) on intention to deprive permanently applies in situations where the defendant attempts to sell the owner their own property

R v Raphael

s6(1) applied in this ransom case

R v Waters

s6(1) on intention to deprive permanently on ransom cases did not apply where the condition could be readily fulfilled now or in the near future

DPP v J

s6(1) applies where the defendant renders the property useless

R v Fernandes

s6(1) applies where the defendant intends to treat the property in a manner which risks its loss

R v Mitchell

regarding s6(1) to dispose of does not simply mean dealing with the property

R v Lloyd

s6(1) does not apply where the defendant borrows property and returns in in the same condition - was the intention to return it minus all its goodness, virtue and practical value?

Section 6(2)

covers cases where D pledges P’s property as security for a loan. At the time D may intend to redeem the loan and return the property to P. However, P has parted with the property under a condition as to its return which D might not be able to fulfil

R v Velumyl

Where property is returned, it must be the exact same property as was taken and not an interchangeable equivalent