Theft
- Was governed by Larceny Act 1916, but Act was problematic
- Now governed under Theft Act 1968, which simplified law and made it clearer
- s1(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
Actus Reus
- s.3 — Appropriation
• Definition under s.3(1) — assumes one or more of the rights of the owner
• Has been increased over the years and is argued by Professor Smith in Smith [1993] that theft has
been ‘reduced to vanishing point’
• Does not require view to benefit from appropriation
• A later appropriation — where D comes by property without stealing it, any later assumption of a
right amounts to appropriation
• Not all rights need to be assumed
• Morris [1994]
• D swapped price labels on goods at a shop, which amounted to appropriation
• Issue of consent came after Theft Act 1968 was passed, even though it was mentioned in Larceny
Act 1916
• Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972]
• Taxi driver takes out money from Italian student’s wallet when he owed him 50p, but took £5
instead
• Argued that student consented to him taking money, but was held that absence of consent not
needed to establish theft
• v Gomez [1993]
R
• D (assistant manager) allowed friend to buy £17k of electrical goods with 2 stolen cheques
• D persuaded the shop manager to accept the cheques, and he agreed
• Held that there may be an appropriation when consent is present
• Inter vivos gifts
• Mazo [1997]
• D (maid) convicted of stealing cheques from her employer, which she cashed out
• D argued that these were gifts from employer, but prosecution believed she was taking
advantage of employer’s short-term memory
• Initially quashed conviction, but was later criticised by CoA in Hopkins and Kendrick [1997]
• Hinks [2000]
• D befriended gullible 53-year-old, and she encouraged him to give her £60k and a TV
• Convicted of theft and appealed
• CoA dismissed appeal, holding that gifts can be appropriated
• Creates tension in criminal law and civil law, where recipients of gifts may be guilty of theft
criminally but civilly has a right to the property
• Appropriation must be a physical act
• Briggs [2003]
• D caused proceeds of elder relative’s house to go to her own bank account by deceiving them,
but conviction of theft quashed
• When someone purchases property, but it later comes out that the ownership did not pass to the
purchaser, purchaser not guilty of theft
- s.4 — Property
- Was governed by Larceny Act 1916, but Act was problematic
- Now governed under Theft Act 1968, which simplified law and made it clearer
- s1(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
Actus Reus
- s.3 — Appropriation
• Definition under s.3(1) — assumes one or more of the rights of the owner
• Has been increased over the years and is argued by Professor Smith in Smith [1993] that theft has
been ‘reduced to vanishing point’
• Does not require view to benefit from appropriation
• A later appropriation — where D comes by property without stealing it, any later assumption of a
right amounts to appropriation
• Not all rights need to be assumed
• Morris [1994]
• D swapped price labels on goods at a shop, which amounted to appropriation
• Issue of consent came after Theft Act 1968 was passed, even though it was mentioned in Larceny
Act 1916
• Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972]
• Taxi driver takes out money from Italian student’s wallet when he owed him 50p, but took £5
instead
• Argued that student consented to him taking money, but was held that absence of consent not
needed to establish theft
• v Gomez [1993]
R
• D (assistant manager) allowed friend to buy £17k of electrical goods with 2 stolen cheques
• D persuaded the shop manager to accept the cheques, and he agreed
• Held that there may be an appropriation when consent is present
• Inter vivos gifts
• Mazo [1997]
• D (maid) convicted of stealing cheques from her employer, which she cashed out
• D argued that these were gifts from employer, but prosecution believed she was taking
advantage of employer’s short-term memory
• Initially quashed conviction, but was later criticised by CoA in Hopkins and Kendrick [1997]
• Hinks [2000]
• D befriended gullible 53-year-old, and she encouraged him to give her £60k and a TV
• Convicted of theft and appealed
• CoA dismissed appeal, holding that gifts can be appropriated
• Creates tension in criminal law and civil law, where recipients of gifts may be guilty of theft
criminally but civilly has a right to the property
• Appropriation must be a physical act
• Briggs [2003]
• D caused proceeds of elder relative’s house to go to her own bank account by deceiving them,
but conviction of theft quashed
• When someone purchases property, but it later comes out that the ownership did not pass to the
purchaser, purchaser not guilty of theft
- s.4 — Property
