Theft
Property offences are over half of all crime recorded by the police, (e.g., theft and fraud).
Theft is a statutory offence found under the Theft Act 1968, s.1(1) - was previously found under Larceny
Act 1916 - theft has expanded greatly since its involvement in the Larceny Act.
- Under the old law, it was only theft where D took physical property from V.
- The new law extends to intangible property.
Section1(1) Theft Act 1968 - “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 - appropriation, property, belonging to another
- Mens rea - dishonestly, intention of permanently deprive
Appropriation -
Theft Act 1968 s.3(1): “Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner, amounts to an
appropriation”.
There were debates both in courts and Parliament about what constituted appropriation.
Three Key Questions -
1. Does D have to assume one or all the rights of the owner in order to appropriate?
2. 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?
3. If D receives the property as a valid gift at civil law, can be nevertheless appropriate the property
for the purposes of s.3(1)?
1. Assuming any of the rights of an owner -
Ownership rights = bundle of rights
R v Morris (1984) AC 320 (swapping price labels in a store and consequently paid a lower price) confirmed
in R v Gomez (1993) AC 442
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’ - R v Atakpu (1994) QB 69 (CA).
Meaning that appropriation can happen multiple times; theft cannot.
e.g., if a friend decides to borrow your laptop - appropriation happens when they touch
the laptop, when they turn it on and when they decide to keep it.
2. Appropriation with the owner’s consent -
Consent is irrelevant, appropriation is still appropriation - Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
(1972) AC 676 (involved an Italian student who did not speak very good English, the taxi driver said that
the fare would be very expensive when it was meant to be 50p and D argued that it was not theft as V
had consented to him taking it, this appeal was denied)
Lord Roskill in Morris: appropriation requires an adverse interference with the owner’s rights.
Morris was overturned by R v Gomez, which is the current law.
R v Gomez (1993) AC 442 Summary - (concerned stolen cheques, contended on appeal that as his
management has authorised them it did not amount to theft, this was dismissed).
D needs only assume one of the rights of the owner, not all of them.
An appropriation is an ‘objective description of the act done irrespective of the mental state of
either the owner or the accused’ - the owner’s consent is irrelevant.
3. Valid gift -
R v Hinks (2001) 2 AC 24 (young mother befriended a naive 50-year-old man and regularly accompanied
him to the bank to withdraw money over a period of time and gave it to her, this amounted to £16,000
Property offences are over half of all crime recorded by the police, (e.g., theft and fraud).
Theft is a statutory offence found under the Theft Act 1968, s.1(1) - was previously found under Larceny
Act 1916 - theft has expanded greatly since its involvement in the Larceny Act.
- Under the old law, it was only theft where D took physical property from V.
- The new law extends to intangible property.
Section1(1) Theft Act 1968 - “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 - appropriation, property, belonging to another
- Mens rea - dishonestly, intention of permanently deprive
Appropriation -
Theft Act 1968 s.3(1): “Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner, amounts to an
appropriation”.
There were debates both in courts and Parliament about what constituted appropriation.
Three Key Questions -
1. Does D have to assume one or all the rights of the owner in order to appropriate?
2. 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?
3. If D receives the property as a valid gift at civil law, can be nevertheless appropriate the property
for the purposes of s.3(1)?
1. Assuming any of the rights of an owner -
Ownership rights = bundle of rights
R v Morris (1984) AC 320 (swapping price labels in a store and consequently paid a lower price) confirmed
in R v Gomez (1993) AC 442
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’ - R v Atakpu (1994) QB 69 (CA).
Meaning that appropriation can happen multiple times; theft cannot.
e.g., if a friend decides to borrow your laptop - appropriation happens when they touch
the laptop, when they turn it on and when they decide to keep it.
2. Appropriation with the owner’s consent -
Consent is irrelevant, appropriation is still appropriation - Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
(1972) AC 676 (involved an Italian student who did not speak very good English, the taxi driver said that
the fare would be very expensive when it was meant to be 50p and D argued that it was not theft as V
had consented to him taking it, this appeal was denied)
Lord Roskill in Morris: appropriation requires an adverse interference with the owner’s rights.
Morris was overturned by R v Gomez, which is the current law.
R v Gomez (1993) AC 442 Summary - (concerned stolen cheques, contended on appeal that as his
management has authorised them it did not amount to theft, this was dismissed).
D needs only assume one of the rights of the owner, not all of them.
An appropriation is an ‘objective description of the act done irrespective of the mental state of
either the owner or the accused’ - the owner’s consent is irrelevant.
3. Valid gift -
R v Hinks (2001) 2 AC 24 (young mother befriended a naive 50-year-old man and regularly accompanied
him to the bank to withdraw money over a period of time and gave it to her, this amounted to £16,000
