Theft

What act and section is theft outlined under?

s.1 Theft Act 1968

What does s.1 Theft Act 1968 describe theft as?

‘‘The dishonest (s.2) appropriation (s.3) of property (s.4) belonging to another (s.5) with intention to permanently deprive (s.6)’’

What is an appropriation ?

s.3: ‘Any assumption of the rights of the owner’ - this includes taking, selling, destroying, eating etc. Pitham and Heel - Ds sold their friends furniture while she was in prison. Held to be theft.

Morris - D switched price labels around in a shop. This was held as theft as only some rights need to be assumed for appropriation, not all.

Can theft be consented to?

No.

Lawrence - Foreign student gave a taxi driver his wallet to take the correct amount of money. The taxi driver took more than he charged. HELD that there was an appropriation despite consent.

What is property?

s.4: ‘Money and all other property real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.’

Can be stolen:

-Money

-Personal property (phones, cars, etc.)

-Real property (land/buildings)

-Things in action (bank accounts, tickets, cheques)

-Other intangible property (patents/ideas)

• Kelly and Lindsay: body parts were stolen for an exhibition. HELD: although not usually property, they were considered as such here due to their use.

Can’t be stolen:

-Wild plants/fruits./mushrooms unless used for sale

-wild animals unless in captivity

-information unless it is personal

• Oxford and Moss: D memorized exam answers and put the paper back. Info is not property so he was not liable.

What does ‘belonging to another’ mean?

s.5: ‘Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propriety or interest.’

-Turner: D left his car in the garage and would pay in the morning. He went back at night and stole the car. Held to be theft.

• s.5(3) Legal obligation to deal with the property in a specific way. If property is given to another on the basis they will deal with it in a certain way, it still belongs to the original owner. (Turner was contracted so is different)

• Davidge v Bunnett: D was given money to pay for rent. She used it to buy roommates Christmas presents instead. Held to be theft.

What happens if you acquire property by mistake? s.5(4)

If the D acquires property by mistake there is no legal requirement to return it, except in 2 exceptions.

1. Under the Sale of Goods Act when an extra charge is given after a sale. They are under a legal obligation to return the money.

   - Gilks: booker gave D more money after he won a horse race. Held he was not liable as gambling tansactions are not legally enforceable.

2. Under a contract of employment when extra money is given by wage.

   -AG reference No.1 1983: D was overpaid £75. She was found guilty as she didn’t return the money.

What happens if ownerless property is taken?

Lost property can be stolen, abandoned property cannot be stolen.

Property is considered abandoned if the owner is indifferent as to the future of the goods.

R Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates Courts: D was arrested after taking charity bags from outside of a charity shop. He was guilty as the property was not abandoned.

Mens Rea: s.2 Dishonesty

The Theft Act 1968 does not specifically define what dishonesty is, but it does outline areas where the D would not be dishonest.

1. Where the D believes he has a legal right to deprive the other of property (Robinson: D took £5 from someone who owed him £7. He was not guilty)

2. Where the D genuinely believes the owner would have allowed him to have the property in the circumstances.(Holden: D worked for quickfit and took tires because other employees were. He was not guilty)

3. Where the D believes the true owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps. (Small: D took a car he believed to be abandoned as it was left for 2 weeks. He was not liable as he genuinely thought it was abandoned.)

Two cases that ‘define’ dishonesty:

Ivey v Genting Casinos: D was refused winnings becasue he used a ‘system’ to win. D’s conviction of theft was upheld as the reasonable man would have deemed it dishonest.

Barton and Booth: Barton was the owner of a care home and persuaded clients to sign property over to him. He was guilty as it was dishonest.

(basically if the RM would consider it dishonest it is)

Mens Rea: s.6 Intention to permanently deprive

This only has to have at the time of appropriation. Attempts to return property later is not considered.

Because of this, unauthorized borrowing is not theft unless returned with ‘wholly diminished value’.

1. Money: Intent to deprive will still exist even if equivalent money is returned, as the exact notes/coins are gone. (Velumyl: D took £1k from a company safe with intent to return it. Since exact money was taken he was liable for theft.)

2. Borrowed property: This is only theft if the property has ‘wholly diminished in value so all goodness and virtue has gone.’ (Lloyd: D borrowed film which he pirated then returned. Not theft.)

What is conditional intent?

When the D takes an item to see if it is worth stealing but returns it if it is not.

This will not amount to theft as at that stage it cannot be proven whether the D had intention to permanently deprive (as they had not formed it yet). However, this could amount to an attempt.

Easom: D picked up a handbag and rummaged through it but returned it and its contents. D was acquitted.