30/10/2020
- Theft Act 1968
- Statutory offence, not built off of case law. Case law on theft comes after the statute.
- Previously: Larceny Act 1916 - you were only criminally liable if you physically stole
something, and therefore related only to physical property.
- The new Theft Act extended to intangible property, and introduced the concepts of
appropriation etc.
- Theft Act 1968, s.1(1) - a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
other from it.
- Elements of Theft
- Actus reus:
- Appropriation
- Property
- Belonging to another
- Mens rea:
- Dishonesty
- Intention to permanently deprive
- Appropriation
- Defined in the Theft Act 1968 s.3(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.
- Considerable debate surrounding what constituted appropriation and what doesn’t?
There are three key questions for this:
- Does D have to assume one or all of the rights of the owner in order to appropriate?
- Does D ‘assume’ a right of the owner, for the purposes of s.3(1), when he has the
owner’s consent to act as he does in relation to the property?
- If D receives the property as a valid gift at civil law, can he nevertheless appropriate the
property for the purposes of s.3(1)?
- Assuming the rights of an owner
, - Ownership rights = bundle of rights
- Is appropriation the assumption of all the rights of the owner or is the assumption of any
of these rights sufficient?
- Morris [1984] AC 320
- “It is to be observed that the definition of “appropriation” in section 3(1) is not exhaustive.
But section 1(1) and 3(1) show clearly that there can be no conviction for theft contrary
to section 1(1) even if all the other ingredients of the offence are proved unless
“appropriation” is also proved.” - Lord Roskill
- “It follows therefore that it is enough for the prosecution if they have proved in these
cases the assumption by the respondent of any of the rights of the owner of the goods in
question” - Lord Roskill
- Principles of these cases confirmed the position set out in R v Lawrence (Alan) [1972]
AC 626.
- Morris is confirmed in Gomez [1993] AC 442 - It is sufficient to assume any of the rights
of the owner in order to appropriate something.
- Atakpu [1994] QB 69 (CA) - Appropriation can occur more than once in relation to the
same property but theft is committed just once and only continues while D is ‘on the job’.
- In other words, appropriation can happen multiple times; theft cannot.
- NB: This has implications in practise. Although an event may involve one single person
and one single item of property, there may be several acts of appropriation. In problem
questions, it is important to identify precisely which act of appropriation you are
discussing. Appropriation must coincide at the same time as the other elements of theft,
including mens rea.
- Appropriation with consent
- Is it necessary for appropriation to be non-consented?
- Can D appropriate the property if she has the owner’s consent to act as she does with
the property?
- Lawrence [1972] AC 626 - Italian student who did not speak good English. The taxi
driver overcharged the student, and was convicted of theft. He appealed his conviction
arguing that he had not stolen the money because the victim had consented to it being
taken by him. The court rejected this argument because the student had only consented
to the legal amount being taken. Following this case the legal position was such that
there could be an appropriation even when the victim consented to the acts of D towards
the property.
- Morris [1984] - “In the context of section 3(1) [of the Theft Act], the concept of
appropriation in my view involved not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the
owner but an act by way of adverse interference with or usurpation of those rights.”
- In other words, D must do something that is objectively inconsistent with the rights of the
owner in order to appropriate.
- Gomez [1993] AC 442 - Gomez was an assistant manager at an electrical goods shop.
He was asked by an acquaintance to supply goods from the shop in return for payment
- Theft Act 1968
- Statutory offence, not built off of case law. Case law on theft comes after the statute.
- Previously: Larceny Act 1916 - you were only criminally liable if you physically stole
something, and therefore related only to physical property.
- The new Theft Act extended to intangible property, and introduced the concepts of
appropriation etc.
- Theft Act 1968, s.1(1) - a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
other from it.
- Elements of Theft
- Actus reus:
- Appropriation
- Property
- Belonging to another
- Mens rea:
- Dishonesty
- Intention to permanently deprive
- Appropriation
- Defined in the Theft Act 1968 s.3(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.
- Considerable debate surrounding what constituted appropriation and what doesn’t?
There are three key questions for this:
- Does D have to assume one or all of the rights of the owner in order to appropriate?
- Does D ‘assume’ a right of the owner, for the purposes of s.3(1), when he has the
owner’s consent to act as he does in relation to the property?
- If D receives the property as a valid gift at civil law, can he nevertheless appropriate the
property for the purposes of s.3(1)?
- Assuming the rights of an owner
, - Ownership rights = bundle of rights
- Is appropriation the assumption of all the rights of the owner or is the assumption of any
of these rights sufficient?
- Morris [1984] AC 320
- “It is to be observed that the definition of “appropriation” in section 3(1) is not exhaustive.
But section 1(1) and 3(1) show clearly that there can be no conviction for theft contrary
to section 1(1) even if all the other ingredients of the offence are proved unless
“appropriation” is also proved.” - Lord Roskill
- “It follows therefore that it is enough for the prosecution if they have proved in these
cases the assumption by the respondent of any of the rights of the owner of the goods in
question” - Lord Roskill
- Principles of these cases confirmed the position set out in R v Lawrence (Alan) [1972]
AC 626.
- Morris is confirmed in Gomez [1993] AC 442 - It is sufficient to assume any of the rights
of the owner in order to appropriate something.
- Atakpu [1994] QB 69 (CA) - Appropriation can occur more than once in relation to the
same property but theft is committed just once and only continues while D is ‘on the job’.
- In other words, appropriation can happen multiple times; theft cannot.
- NB: This has implications in practise. Although an event may involve one single person
and one single item of property, there may be several acts of appropriation. In problem
questions, it is important to identify precisely which act of appropriation you are
discussing. Appropriation must coincide at the same time as the other elements of theft,
including mens rea.
- Appropriation with consent
- Is it necessary for appropriation to be non-consented?
- Can D appropriate the property if she has the owner’s consent to act as she does with
the property?
- Lawrence [1972] AC 626 - Italian student who did not speak good English. The taxi
driver overcharged the student, and was convicted of theft. He appealed his conviction
arguing that he had not stolen the money because the victim had consented to it being
taken by him. The court rejected this argument because the student had only consented
to the legal amount being taken. Following this case the legal position was such that
there could be an appropriation even when the victim consented to the acts of D towards
the property.
- Morris [1984] - “In the context of section 3(1) [of the Theft Act], the concept of
appropriation in my view involved not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the
owner but an act by way of adverse interference with or usurpation of those rights.”
- In other words, D must do something that is objectively inconsistent with the rights of the
owner in order to appropriate.
- Gomez [1993] AC 442 - Gomez was an assistant manager at an electrical goods shop.
He was asked by an acquaintance to supply goods from the shop in return for payment
