cases for theft

MORRIS — What happened?

D changed the price labels on goods in a shop so he could pay a lower price than the actual price.

MORRIS — What was the outcome?

D was guilty of theft because changing the labels meant he had assumed one of the owner's rights over the goods.

MORRIS — What legal principle does it establish?

Appropriation occurs when D assumes any of the rights of the owner. It is enough to assume one right.

MORRIS — Which element of theft does it support?

Actus reus — appropriation under s3 Theft Act 1968.

OXFORD v MOSS — What happened?

D obtained an examination paper and copied the information from it, but did not permanently take the physical paper.

OXFORD v MOSS — What was the outcome?

D was not guilty of theft because confidential information is not property under s4.

OXFORD v MOSS — What legal principle does it establish?

Confidential information is not property for the purposes of theft and therefore cannot be stolen.

OXFORD v MOSS — Which element of theft does it support?

Actus reus — property under s4 Theft Act 1968.

TURNER — What happened?

D took his car to a garage for work and later took it back without paying for the work.

TURNER — Why could the car belong to another?

Although D owned the car, the garage had possession and control of it while it was in their possession.

TURNER — What was the outcome?

D was guilty of theft because the garage had possession and control of the car.

TURNER — What legal principle does it establish?

Property can belong to another through possession or control, even if D is the legal owner.

TURNER — Which element of theft does it support?

Actus reus — belonging to another under s5 Theft Act 1968.

RICKETTS — What happened?

D took clothing which he believed had been abandoned outside a shop.

RICKETTS — What was the issue?

The issue was whether the clothing had actually been abandoned by its owner.

RICKETTS — What was the outcome?

D was guilty because the clothing had not been abandoned and still belonged to the shop.

RICKETTS — What legal principle does it establish?

Property is not abandoned simply because it has been left somewhere; the owner's intention to abandon it must be considered.

RICKETTS — Which element of theft does it support?

Actus reus — belonging to another under s5 Theft Act 1968.

HOLDEN — What happened?

D took goods from his employer but genuinely believed he had the owner's consent because he had seen other people taking items.

HOLDEN — What did D genuinely believe?

D genuinely believed the owner would consent to him taking the items.

HOLDEN — What was the outcome?

D was not guilty of theft because his genuine belief meant he was not dishonest.

HOLDEN — What legal principle does it establish?

A genuine belief that the owner would consent can prevent dishonesty under s2(1)(b).

HOLDEN — Which element of theft does it support?

Mens rea — dishonesty under s2(1)(b) Theft Act 1968.

VELUMYL — What happened?

D took money from his employer intending to repay it, but planned to return different notes and coins.

VELUMYL — What did D intend to return?

D intended to return different notes and coins rather than the exact money he had taken.

VELUMYL — What was the outcome?

D was guilty because he intended to permanently deprive the company of the exact notes and coins taken.

VELUMYL — What legal principle does it establish?

Returning different notes and coins does not prevent an intention to permanently deprive.

VELUMYL — Which element of theft does it support?

Mens rea — intention to permanently deprive under s6 Theft Act 1968.

LAVENDER — What happened?

D removed a door from one council property and intended to use it at another property.

LAVENDER — What did D do with the property?

D treated the door as his own and decided where it would be used instead of respecting the council's rights.

LAVENDER — What was the outcome?

D was guilty because he treated the council's property as his own to dispose of.

LAVENDER — What legal principle does it establish?

Treating property as your own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights can amount to permanent deprivation.

LAVENDER — Which element of theft does it support?

Mens rea — intention to permanently deprive under s6 Theft Act 1968.