Theft

S.1(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.

Appropriation (s.3(1))

Assumption by a person of the rights of an owners amounts to an appropiation

Morris (1984)

Assuming you mean R v Morris (1984), the theft/appropriation case:

• Facts:

  • Morris was in a supermarket and swapped the original price labels on goods for cheaper ones.

  • He then went to the checkout and paid the lower prices.

  • He was arrested and charged with theft.

• Verdict:

  • The House of Lords upheld his conviction for theft.

  • The dishonest changing of the price labels was an appropriation because Morris interfered with the supermarket's rights over its property.

  • Key point: Theft can occur before the person reaches the checkout.

R v Vinall (2011)

• Facts:

  • Vinall and another man punched a cyclist, causing him to leave his bicycle.

  • They took the bicycle and later abandoned it nearby.

  • They were convicted of robbery.

• Verdict:

  • The Court of Appeal quashed their robbery convictions because the jury had not been properly directed about when they formed the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the bike.

  • The case shows that the intention to permanently deprive must exist at the time of the appropriation for theft/robbery.

Lawrence (1972)

• Facts:

  • An Italian student took a taxi and did not speak much English.

  • The taxi driver took £6 from her wallet, claiming it was the fare.

  • The correct fare was only 10 shillings and 6 pence.

  • The student had technically allowed the driver to take the money.

• Verdict:

  • The House of Lords upheld the driver's conviction for theft.

  • The court ruled that appropriation can occur even when the owner consents to the taking.

  • Key point: Consent does not prevent appropriation; it may be relevant to dishonesty instead.

Gomez (1993)

• Facts:

  • Gomez was an assistant manager in an electrical shop.

  • He helped an accomplice buy goods using stolen cheques.

  • Gomez lied to the shop manager, who then agreed to accept the cheques and allowed the goods to be taken.

• Verdict:

  • The House of Lords upheld Gomez's conviction for theft.

  • The court decided that appropriation can happen even when the owner consents, if that consent was obtained through deception.

  • Key point: Consent does not prevent appropriation.

Hinks (1998)

• Facts:

  • Hinks was a carer for a vulnerable man, Mr Dolphin.

  • She persuaded him to give her large amounts of money and valuable items.

  • He voluntarily gave these to her, but she knew he was vulnerable and had limited mental ability.

  • She was charged with theft.

• Verdict:

  • The House of Lords upheld her conviction for theft.

  • The court ruled that appropriation can occur even when the owner freely consents to giving away their property.

  • Key point: A valid gift can still be an appropriation if it is obtained dishonestly.

R v Pitham and Hehl (1977)

• Facts:

  • Pitham and Hehl stole furniture from a house.

  • They offered the furniture for sale to another person.

  • The furniture was still inside the owner's house when they offered it for sale.

• Verdict:

  • They were convicted of theft.

  • The court decided that appropriation can happen even without physically taking the property.

  • Key point: Simply offering someone else's property for sale can amount to appropriation.

Property s.4(1)

Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

Property s.4(2)

A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions except in the following cases:

• s2(a) where ownership rights over land are transferred to another person. E.g A trustee who has rights over land has rights to sell house, but only to benefit children of owner.

• s2(b): can commit theft of things forming part of the land eg soil, apples, grave

• s2*c): tenant can be guilty of theft if he/she removes fixtures.

Smith (2011)

Property includes prohibited drugs

Sharp (1857)

property does not include corpses

Kelly (1999)

body parts may constitute property where application and skill changed their nature

Oxford v Moss (1979)

• Facts:

  • Moss was a university student who obtained a confidential copy of an upcoming exam paper.

  • He read the questions but intended to return the paper.

  • He was charged with stealing the confidential information in the paper.

• Verdict:

  • The court decided that confidential information is not property under the Theft Act 1968.

  • Therefore, Moss could not be convicted of theft.

  • Key point: Confidential information cannot be stolen under the Theft Act 1968.

Marshall (1998)

Travel cards as property - cards had value, ticket as a representation of right to travel

Property s.4(3)

A person who picks wild mushrooms, flowers or foliage growing wild on any land is not guilty of theft unless it is for sale/reward.

Property s.4(4)

Wild creatures cannot be stolen unless they have been reduced into possession.

Belonging to another s.5(1)

Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having any legal right or interest.

Turner (NO.2) (1971)

• Facts:

  • Turner owned a car and took it to a garage for repairs.

  • The garage repaired the car and had possession and control of it.

  • Turner later took the car back without paying for the repairs.

• Verdict:

  • Turner was convicted of theft.

  • The court decided that the car belonged to the garage because they had possession or control of it at the time.

  • Key point: You can steal your own property if someone else has possession or control of it.

Woodman (1974)

• Facts:

  • Woodman took scrap metal from a disused factory site.

  • The site was fenced off to prevent people from entering.

  • Woodman argued that the scrap metal did not belong to anyone because the company did not know it was still there.

• Verdict:

  • Woodman was convicted of theft.

  • The court held that the company had control of the land and the property on it, even though they did not know the scrap metal was there.

  • Key point: Property can belong to another if someone has possession or control of it, even if they are unaware of its existence.

Belonging to another s.5(3)

Where property is given to a person with instructions to deal with a certain way, ownership remains with giver.

Davidge v Bennett (1984)

D was under a legal obligation to use cheque to pay for communal gas bill, failure to do so was theft.

Belonging to another s.5(4)

where a person receives property by mistake and is under an obligation to return it, failure to do so will amount to theft.

A-G’s reference (NO.1) (1985)

• Facts:

  • A policewoman was accidentally overpaid £74 in her wages.

  • She later realised the money had been paid by mistake but did not return it.

  • She was charged with theft.

• Verdict:

  • The court ruled that she could potentially be guilty of theft.

  • The money in her bank account was considered property belonging to another.

  • Once she knew about the mistake, she had a legal obligation to return the money.

  • Key point: Money paid by mistake can be stolen if the person knows about the mistake and dishonestly fails to return it.

R v Gilks (1972)

• Facts:

  • Gilks placed a bet on a horse called Fighting Scot.

  • The betting shop mistakenly thought he had bet on the winning horse, Fighting Taffy.

  • He was overpaid £106.63.

  • Gilks knew the payment was a mistake but kept the money.

• Verdict:

  • Gilks' conviction for theft was upheld.

  • The court found that he had acted dishonestly by keeping money he knew he was not entitled to.

  • Key point: Keeping money paid to you by mistake can amount to theft if you know about the mistake and act dishonestly.

Dishonestly

3 situations of dishonestly:

• s2(1): a defendant is not dishonest if they honestly believe they have a legal right to the property as in the case of Holden

• s2(1)b: a defendant is not dishonest if they honestly believe the owner would consent to the taking

• s2(1)c: a defendant is not dishonest if they honestly believe the owner cannot be found having taken reasonable steps.

Ivey v genting Casinos LTD

• Facts:

  • Phil Ivey was a professional gambler who played Punto Banco at a casino.

  • He used a technique called "edge-sorting" to gain an advantage.

  • He won around £7.7 million, but the casino refused to pay him because it considered his actions cheating.

  • Ivey argued that he had not cheated and sued the casino for his winnings.

• Verdict:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the casino and dismissed Ivey's appeal.

  • The court also established the modern two-stage test for dishonesty:

    1. Find out what the defendant genuinely believed the facts to be.

    2. Decide whether their conduct was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people.

  • The defendant does not need to realise that ordinary people would consider their conduct dishonest.

Barton and Booth (2020)

• Facts:

  • Barton ran a nursing home, and Booth was the general manager.

  • They targeted elderly and vulnerable residents and gained their trust.

  • Barton obtained millions of pounds through gifts, wills, power of attorney and other financial arrangements.

  • Booth helped Barton with his dishonest activities.

• Verdict:

  • Barton was convicted of theft, fraud, conspiracy to defraud and other offences.

  • Booth was convicted of conspiracy to defraud.

  • The Court of Appeal upheld their convictions and confirmed the modern Ivey test for dishonesty applies in criminal cases.

Intention to permanently deprive s.6(1)

a person has necessary intention if they treat the property as their own regardless of the owner’s rights

Velumyl (1989)

Cash from safe - taking of banknotes from safe amount to an ITPD even if D intended on replacing them with other banknotes to the same value later.

Lloyd (1985)

Cinema films - no ITPD as the goodness', virtue and practical value had not been used up to apply s.6(1) as an outright taking

Intention to permanently deprive s.6(2)

Borrowing in circumstances making it equal to an outright taking.

PP v J and Others (2002)

• Facts:

  • The defendants were involved in a scheme to steal money.

  • They used bank accounts to receive and transfer money obtained through criminal activity.

  • The case focused on whether the defendants had the intention to permanently deprive the victims of their money.

• Verdict:

  • The court found that the defendants could be guilty of theft.

  • The case showed that intention to permanently deprive can exist even where the defendant plans to return or replace the money later.

  • Key point: Intending to return equivalent money does not necessarily prevent an intention to permanently deprive.