actus reus of theft

The three actus reus elements that must be proved by the prosecution:
- (a) Appropriation
- (b) Property
- (c) Belonging to another
Definition of actus reus elements of theft is very wide, especially 'appropriation' which has broadened over time.
Professor Smith: the actus reus of theft has been ‘reduced to vanishing point’.

Appropriation defined in s.3(1) of the Theft Act 1968:
- Any assumption of the rights of the owner amounts to appropriation, regardless of how the property was obtained.
The defendant appropriates property by:
- Taking possession
- Using
- Selling
- Lending
- Giving away
- Destroying
- Failing to return or keeping the property.
No need for a view to gain or benefit for theft to be established, e.g., taking money to donate to charity still counts as appropriation.

Section 3(1) states later appropriation applies if the defendant assumes the rights of the owner after initially obtaining property innocently.
Examples include:
- Keeping borrowed property
- Dealing with the property as if it is one's own.
All five elements of theft must be established at the point of later appropriation.
Thinking Point: Examining appropriations in various scenarios involving borrowed items.

Morris case establishes that the defendant needs to assume any single right of the owner (not all rights).

Courts are divided on whether appropriation must be unauthorized.
Thinking Point: Analyze scenarios of appropriation in varying contexts, like borrowing or damaging property.

Prior to the Theft Act 1968, larceny required property to be taken without the owner's consent.
Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner:
- House of Lords held that appropriation need not be without owner's consent.
Morris revisited this issue, suggesting unauthorized acts might constitute appropriation.
DPP v Gomez confirmed that appropriation is not reliant on owner's consent.

Briggs case establishes appropriation requires a physical act, not merely a remote action.

Section 3(2) states good faith purchasers are not guilty of theft if they were unaware that the title did not pass to them.

Appropriation may last for an extended period, allowing multiple appropriations before the crime is complete.

Prosecution must establish that the defendant appropriated property as defined in s.4(1) of the Theft Act 1968:
- Includes money, real property, personal property, and intangible property.
The definition of property encompasses:
- Tangible assets like cash, vehicles
- Intangible assets like debts, trademarks
Case law illustrates that possession or control does not undermine wrongful appropriation (e.g., theft of illegal drugs).

Confidential information is not considered property (Oxford v Moss).
Electricity does not count as property and cannot be stolen.
Corpses and body parts generally cannot be stolen unless preserved for specific purposes (Kelly and Lindsay).

Services (e.g., bus rides) do not comprise property under s.4(1) and cannot be stolen.

Intangible properties like shares or debts fall under property and can be stolen if appropriated dishonestly.

The last element to establish theft is that the property belonged to another (s.5(1)).
Property does not need to be proven to belong to someone specific, just that it belongs to another person.

A person cannot steal from themselves but can from others holding their property (Turner (No. 2)).

Abandoned property belongs to none and cannot be stolen.
The distinction between lost and abandoned property is nuanced and context-dependent.

Questions arise about property ownership from deceased individuals, wherein the prosecution must prove the property belonged to a living owner.

Sections 5(3) and (4) outline that property received with a duty must be dealt with according to obligation; failing this can lead to charges of theft.