Theft 2
Found in Theft Act 1968
1 Basic definition of theft.
(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.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this
section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).
Intention to Permanently Deprive
Attorney General’s Reference (No1 of 1983) [1985]
Police officer overpaid wages by mistake
Did not notify employer of overpayment
However, she did not spend the money, and left it in her account (evidence of the intention to permanently deprive)
Court held that there was an obligation to return the money, based on s5(4):
“Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole
or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the
property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and
an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the
property or proceeds.”
Intention to Permanently Deprive s6(1) Theft Act 1968
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is
nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat
the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so
treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright
taking or disposal.
This actually says very little about the meaning of “intent to permanently deprive”
No requirement of actual permanent deprivation
Hinges on intention
Therefore, was it the defendant’s AIM AND PURPOSE to permanently deprive (direct intention)
OR
VIRTUALLY CERTAIN OUTCOME (indirect/oblique intention)
Woollin, Moloney, Nedrick
Permanent – Does forming the intent have to coincide with appropriation?
You move a Mickey (and Grogu) plushy close to the front of the Disney Store (in order to make a quick getaway once the
security guard wanders off). Later, you grab it, and run!
Does it matter that the time the appropriation took place and the time where the intention was formed did not
coincide?
Found in Theft Act 1968
1 Basic definition of theft.
(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.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this
section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).
Intention to Permanently Deprive
Attorney General’s Reference (No1 of 1983) [1985]
Police officer overpaid wages by mistake
Did not notify employer of overpayment
However, she did not spend the money, and left it in her account (evidence of the intention to permanently deprive)
Court held that there was an obligation to return the money, based on s5(4):
“Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole
or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the
property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and
an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the
property or proceeds.”
Intention to Permanently Deprive s6(1) Theft Act 1968
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is
nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat
the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so
treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright
taking or disposal.
This actually says very little about the meaning of “intent to permanently deprive”
No requirement of actual permanent deprivation
Hinges on intention
Therefore, was it the defendant’s AIM AND PURPOSE to permanently deprive (direct intention)
OR
VIRTUALLY CERTAIN OUTCOME (indirect/oblique intention)
Woollin, Moloney, Nedrick
Permanent – Does forming the intent have to coincide with appropriation?
You move a Mickey (and Grogu) plushy close to the front of the Disney Store (in order to make a quick getaway once the
security guard wanders off). Later, you grab it, and run!
Does it matter that the time the appropriation took place and the time where the intention was formed did not
coincide?
