Theft

Theft

Section one of the Theft act 1968 states; a person is guilty of theft if they ‘dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other it’

AR - Appropriation

According to section 3; a person appropriate property the moment she or he assumes any of the rights of the true owner

AR - Property

Section 4 defines property as ‘money and all other property, real and personal, including things in action and other intangible property

AR - Belonging to another

According to section 5 ‘property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having it in any proprietary in right or interest.’ This definition is wide enough to cover theft of your own property.

Wild plants/animals

If something is growing wild, it would be theft to take the whole plant or for any commercial purposes. It is not theft to take live or dead wild animals, unless they have already been taken into possession by someone else.

Information

Information cannot be stolen (Oxford v Moss)

Mistake

Where property is received as a result of a mistake, e.g. overpayment of wages there is a legal obligation to make a restoration as in AG‘s reference.

Lost/ abandoned property

Where property is lost it remains property belonging to another. Where a person abandoned property, then the property is not belonging to another as the rights of ownership have been relinquished. Property donated to charity is not abandoned. The items remain the property of the donor until it is taken into possession by the charity when in the charities possession, it is then the property of the charity.

Men’s rea

D must appropriate the property dishonestly (s2). The two-stage test from Ivey v Genting Casinos -

1. What was the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts? This must be genuinely held but doesn’t have to be reasonable (subjective).

2. The question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

Men’s rea Defenses only relevant in the senario

An appropriation is not regarded as dishonest if he appropriates the property in the genuine belief that he has, in law, the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person (s.2(1)(a)). It is also not dishonest under s.2(1)(b) if he takes the property believing the other would consent; or under s.2(1)(c) if the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

Men’s rea Defenses only relevant in the senario 2

The second part of the MR is the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property (s.6). This is where he intends to treat the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the real owner’s rights as in Velumyl where D could not have intended to return the exact notes and coins. However conditional intent is not enough (Easom).