Property Offences
1.0 Theft
The offence of theft is set out under the s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 which
provides:
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
1.1 Actus Reus
Appropriation;
Of property;
Belonging to another.
Appropriation
Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines this as:
(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an
appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property
(innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it
by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
(2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be
transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption
by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason
of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.
Put simply this means acting in relation to the property as if you are the
owner of said property and indeed R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697 confirmed
that an appropriation was not just physically taking the property, but
could be achieved for example by doing any act that only the owner has
the right to do, for example by selling it.
Case in Focus
R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697
The defendant switched the price labels in supermarkets so that when
they reached the checkout they were unknowingly charged a lower price
than intended by the shop assistant. The defendant was charged with
theft but protested the charge claiming no appropriation took place. The
House of Lords held that an appropriation did not require the assumption
of all of the rights of the owner, merely an adverse interference with the
,rights which the defendant had done when switching the labels, an act
which reserved by the owner for their exclusive doing.
An appropriation will still occur where the defendant has the property with
the owner’s permission but then exceeds this permission by assuming the
rights of the owner, for example they have been lent a DVD and have it in
their possession with the permission of the owner but then exceed the
permission by deciding not to give it back or by putting it on eBay!
R v Gomez [1993] AC 442confirms that an appropriation can occur even
when the owner of the property gives consent. This extends even to
situations where the owner gifts the property to the defendant, as was
confirmed inR v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53.
Case in Focus
R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53.
The defendant was a young lady who befriended an older man. The man
was of low intelligence and very naive. Over the period of their friendship
the defendant influenced him and manipulated him into withdrawing large
amount of cash amounting to over £50,000 and depositing it into her
account. When this was discovered the defendant was convicted of theft
and it was held that the fact that she had been given the money by the
defendant was no defence to her.
Property
Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 defines property in great depth, stating:
Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including
things in action and other intangible property.
This definition is very wide and most objects will fall within the scope of it.
The incorporation of the words ‘things in action’ and ‘intangible objects’
extend the meaning of property to cover rights such as those provided by
shares or copyright.
There are some quirks in the law regarding what is and is not property
and accordingly the remainder of s.4 provides further explanation to cover
specific examples. These are now set out as follows.
Section 4 (2) states a person cannot steal land, or things forming
part of land except in the following cases:
- He has legal authority to sell or dispose of land belonging to another and
he appropriates the land or something forming part of it by dealing with it
in breach of the confidence in which the authority was given.
, -He is not in possession of the land but appropriates anything forming part
of it by removing it, causing it to be removed or even after it has been
removed.
- In his capacity as a tenant on land he appropriates the whole of part of
any fixture or structure let with the land.
Section 4 (3) provides:
A person who picks mushrooms, flowers, fruit and foliage from a plant
growing wild on any land for his own personal, non-commercial use does
not steal what he picks.
Section 4 (4) provides:
Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a
person cannot steal a wild creature or the body of a creature that is not
tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity, unless it is in the possession of
another person.
Case law provides further specific definitions of what is or is not property:
Following the ruling in R v Sharp1857 Dears & Bell 160 human body
will not be treated as property, unless it has been altered for
scientific purposes. This was confirmed in R v Kelly and
Lindsay [1998] 3 All E.R. 741
Illegal substances will not be prevented from being classed as
property meaning that a drug dealer could be a victim of theft if his
drugs are taken. This was illustrated in R v Smith [2011]1 Cr App R
30
Information is not property. This was confirmed in Oxford v
Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183where a student accordingly could
not be guilty of theft of the contents of an exam paper.
Examination point
Make sure that you memorise the case law above as you will be expected
to apply it if one of the things discussed has been the subject of a ruling. If
you don’t identify it correctly and apply the case, you may misclassify the
thing at issue and lose marks.
Even where something is obviously property, for example, a wallet, make
sure you apply the relevant s4 definition nonetheless. It shows the
examiner you are aware of the law and will get you easy marks.
Belonging to another
1.0 Theft
The offence of theft is set out under the s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 which
provides:
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
1.1 Actus Reus
Appropriation;
Of property;
Belonging to another.
Appropriation
Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines this as:
(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an
appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property
(innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it
by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
(2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be
transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption
by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason
of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.
Put simply this means acting in relation to the property as if you are the
owner of said property and indeed R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697 confirmed
that an appropriation was not just physically taking the property, but
could be achieved for example by doing any act that only the owner has
the right to do, for example by selling it.
Case in Focus
R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697
The defendant switched the price labels in supermarkets so that when
they reached the checkout they were unknowingly charged a lower price
than intended by the shop assistant. The defendant was charged with
theft but protested the charge claiming no appropriation took place. The
House of Lords held that an appropriation did not require the assumption
of all of the rights of the owner, merely an adverse interference with the
,rights which the defendant had done when switching the labels, an act
which reserved by the owner for their exclusive doing.
An appropriation will still occur where the defendant has the property with
the owner’s permission but then exceeds this permission by assuming the
rights of the owner, for example they have been lent a DVD and have it in
their possession with the permission of the owner but then exceed the
permission by deciding not to give it back or by putting it on eBay!
R v Gomez [1993] AC 442confirms that an appropriation can occur even
when the owner of the property gives consent. This extends even to
situations where the owner gifts the property to the defendant, as was
confirmed inR v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53.
Case in Focus
R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53.
The defendant was a young lady who befriended an older man. The man
was of low intelligence and very naive. Over the period of their friendship
the defendant influenced him and manipulated him into withdrawing large
amount of cash amounting to over £50,000 and depositing it into her
account. When this was discovered the defendant was convicted of theft
and it was held that the fact that she had been given the money by the
defendant was no defence to her.
Property
Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 defines property in great depth, stating:
Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including
things in action and other intangible property.
This definition is very wide and most objects will fall within the scope of it.
The incorporation of the words ‘things in action’ and ‘intangible objects’
extend the meaning of property to cover rights such as those provided by
shares or copyright.
There are some quirks in the law regarding what is and is not property
and accordingly the remainder of s.4 provides further explanation to cover
specific examples. These are now set out as follows.
Section 4 (2) states a person cannot steal land, or things forming
part of land except in the following cases:
- He has legal authority to sell or dispose of land belonging to another and
he appropriates the land or something forming part of it by dealing with it
in breach of the confidence in which the authority was given.
, -He is not in possession of the land but appropriates anything forming part
of it by removing it, causing it to be removed or even after it has been
removed.
- In his capacity as a tenant on land he appropriates the whole of part of
any fixture or structure let with the land.
Section 4 (3) provides:
A person who picks mushrooms, flowers, fruit and foliage from a plant
growing wild on any land for his own personal, non-commercial use does
not steal what he picks.
Section 4 (4) provides:
Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a
person cannot steal a wild creature or the body of a creature that is not
tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity, unless it is in the possession of
another person.
Case law provides further specific definitions of what is or is not property:
Following the ruling in R v Sharp1857 Dears & Bell 160 human body
will not be treated as property, unless it has been altered for
scientific purposes. This was confirmed in R v Kelly and
Lindsay [1998] 3 All E.R. 741
Illegal substances will not be prevented from being classed as
property meaning that a drug dealer could be a victim of theft if his
drugs are taken. This was illustrated in R v Smith [2011]1 Cr App R
30
Information is not property. This was confirmed in Oxford v
Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183where a student accordingly could
not be guilty of theft of the contents of an exam paper.
Examination point
Make sure that you memorise the case law above as you will be expected
to apply it if one of the things discussed has been the subject of a ruling. If
you don’t identify it correctly and apply the case, you may misclassify the
thing at issue and lose marks.
Even where something is obviously property, for example, a wallet, make
sure you apply the relevant s4 definition nonetheless. It shows the
examiner you are aware of the law and will get you easy marks.
Belonging to another
