Theft and robbery

Introduction

D may be guilty of theft/robbery under the Theft Act 1968. S.1 states ‘a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permamently deprive the other of it’.

1. Appropriation

S.3(1) defines appropriation as ‘any assumption by a person the rights of an owner…’.
[Switching labels (Morris)]

[Appropriation does not require the absence of consent (Lawrence)]

[Appropriation could take place even where there is a voluntary gift (Hinks)]
[There could be appropriation even if D leaves empty handed (Corocran v Anderton)]

2. Property

Under s.4, ‘property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property’.
Kelly and Lindsay - personal property

Marshall - intangible property

3. Belonging to another

Belonging to another is defined in S.5(1) ‘Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having in it any proprietrary right or interest…’.

Sometimes people can acquire a proprietary interest over another person’s property (Turner)

[S.5(3) states that where property has been given to the defendant to be dealt with in a particular way and that is not done, there can be theft]

[S.5(4) states if D received property by mistake and fails to return this to the rightful owner, this could amount to theft.]

[Abandoned property may still be deemed to belong to another (R v Rostron)

4. (Robbery) AR

s.8(1) states ‘a person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.’

[Dawson v James - pushing amounts to force]

[Clouden - wrenching handbag]

[B and R v DPP - threat of force]

[R v Lockley - ongoing theft]

5. Mens rea of theft - dishonesty

The mens rea of theft requires two elements to be proved: the defendant was dishonest, and the defendant must have an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

The Theft Act 1968 does not define the word ‘dishonesty’.

In Ivey v Genting Casinos 2017, the Supreme Court outlined the objective test for dishonesty: Has the defendant been dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?

[s.2 guidance on what would not be considered dishonest: s.2(1)(a) - believes right in law, s.2(1)(b) - believes the other consented, s.2(1)c) - believes person cannot be discovered]

6. Intention to permanently deprive

S.6(1) defines an intention to permanently deprive. ‘A person is to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of…’

This looks at whether D’s main aim or purpose was to permanently deprive the other (Mohan).

[In R v Velumeyl, company director took money from the safe with the intention of paying it back, but was guilty of theft as he did not return the exact bank notes he took']

[In R v Lavender, D removed doors from an unoccupied council flat and placed them in his girlfriend’s flat and was guilty of theft as he intended to treat the doors as his own.]

7. (Robbery) mens rea

It must also be proved there is intention to use or threaten force in order to steal.

This considers whether it was D’s main aim or purpose to use or threaten force in order to steal (Mohan).