Property offences

Theft definition

S.1 Theft Act 1968 defines theft as “the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another, with intention to permanently deprive”.

The first stage of actus reus of theft?

Appropriation. S.3 defines this as “assuming the rights of an owner”. Morris- any assumption is enough. Gomez- the appropriation must be dishonest.

SR- if D gets property but then decides to keep it, this is theft (S.3(1)).

If the D had consent to take the property, this is still an appropriation (Lawrence).

You can appropriate property even if you receive it as a gift (Hinks).

The second stage of actus reus of theft?

Property must be stolen. Under S.4 Theft Act 1968, only four types of property can be stolen: money, personal (e.g. wallet), intangible (e.g stock), or real (e.g. buildings).

Property that cannot be stolen: knowledge (Oxford v Moss), wild animals/plants, electricity. Exam tip- these don’t need to be included in your answer.

The third stage of actus reus of theft?

The property must belong to another. S.5 (1) property belongs to another if they have possession or control over it, or a right or interest in it.

SR- if someone has a right or interest in your property, you can steal your own property (Turner).

The original owner still has a right and interest in lost property (S.5(1)).

The owner must have an intention to abandon property (Basildon).

S.5(3)- you must use money given to you for the purpose it was intended (Davidge v Bennett).

S.5(4)- you are under an obligation to return money that was received by mistake (AG Ref).

The first stage of mens rea of theft?

Dishonesty. There is no legal definition, but if the D falls into any of the “three negatives”, they are NOT dishonest :

S.2(1)(A)- D believes they have a right in law to the property.

S.2(1)(B)- D believes the owner would’ve consented to the taking.

S.2(1)(C)- D believes the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

If the “three negatives” don’t apply, apply the dishonesty test (confirmed in Ivey & Booth).

Was the D dishonest by the standards of an honest and reasonable person?

The second stage of mens rea of theft?

Intention to permanently deprive- S.6(1)- “The D intends to continue to treat the property as if it is their own, regardless of the owner’s rights”.

SR- even if you intended to return stolen money, you have to return the exact coins and notes.

If you give property back, but have taken the “goodness, value and virtue”, this is still intention to permanently deprive (Lloyd).

If you only intend to steal something if there is something worth stealing, this isn’t an intention to permanently deprive (Easom).

How to apply robbery?

Establish the actus reus and mens rea of theft before doing the same for robbery.

Robbery definition

S.8 Theft Act 1968- “where the D steals, and immediately before or at the time, and in order to do so, uses the threat of force”.

The first stage of actus reus of robbery?

The D must have committed a theft (Robinson). “This has already been established above”.

The second stage of actus reus of robbery?

The D must use force or the threat of force. Dawson- any amount of force is enough.

The third stage of actus reus of robbery?

Force must be used immediately before, or at the time of the theft. Hale- appropriation is a continuing act, as long as force takes place “at some point”, this is enough.

The fourth stage actus reus of robbery?

Force must be used order to steal (Lockley).

The first stage of mens rea of robbery?

The mens rea of theft must be established- dishonesty, and an intention to permanently deprive. “This has already been established above”.

The mens rea of robbery?

The mens rea of robbery is the intention to use force or the threat of force.