Theft 1
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).
Appropriation
What does this word mean?
OED - The making of a thing private property, whether another's or (as now commonly) one's own; taking as one's own
or to one's own use.
Chambers – To take something as one’s own, especially without permission.
S3(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.
Lawrence [1972] – Issues for the Court
Did D steal the money? V had offered the wallet containing the money – did he consent to him taking the notes?
House of Lords said that consent was irrelevant
The word appropriation does not imply the absence of consent
(Remember, appropriation is one element of theft – also need to establish other elements, including dishonesty)
Note: the D should really have been prosecuted for fraud, not theft, but the Court cannot change the charge, or order a
retrial on a different charge…
Morris [1984]
Defendant took items from a supermarket shelf, and swapped the price label with a lower priced object
House of Lords – upheld conviction, but limited appropriation
Appropriation occurred the moment that the labels were switched – D had interfered with the rights of the owner!
Again, charges should have been fraud – obtaining by deception not theft!
Issues
Lord Roskill explained:
‘The concept of appropriation in my view involves not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner but an act
by way of adverse interference with, or usurpation, of those rights’
Defendant required to commit unauthorised act
Compare with Lawrence: If we apply Lawrence reasoning, D would have appropriated items as soon as he touched
them, not when labels were switched.
Which approach is better?
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).
Appropriation
What does this word mean?
OED - The making of a thing private property, whether another's or (as now commonly) one's own; taking as one's own
or to one's own use.
Chambers – To take something as one’s own, especially without permission.
S3(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.
Lawrence [1972] – Issues for the Court
Did D steal the money? V had offered the wallet containing the money – did he consent to him taking the notes?
House of Lords said that consent was irrelevant
The word appropriation does not imply the absence of consent
(Remember, appropriation is one element of theft – also need to establish other elements, including dishonesty)
Note: the D should really have been prosecuted for fraud, not theft, but the Court cannot change the charge, or order a
retrial on a different charge…
Morris [1984]
Defendant took items from a supermarket shelf, and swapped the price label with a lower priced object
House of Lords – upheld conviction, but limited appropriation
Appropriation occurred the moment that the labels were switched – D had interfered with the rights of the owner!
Again, charges should have been fraud – obtaining by deception not theft!
Issues
Lord Roskill explained:
‘The concept of appropriation in my view involves not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner but an act
by way of adverse interference with, or usurpation, of those rights’
Defendant required to commit unauthorised act
Compare with Lawrence: If we apply Lawrence reasoning, D would have appropriated items as soon as he touched
them, not when labels were switched.
Which approach is better?
