Theft Act 1968 ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another,
with the intention to permanently deprive.’
Section 3 “any assumption of the rights to an owner amount to appropriation.” R v Morris (1983) Any
assumption of the owners' rights is an appropriation R v Gomez (1993) held a dishonest appropriation.
Lawrence – owner consents.
Section 4- property ‘includes money, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible
property’. Oxford v moss (knowledge).
5(1) property = ‘belonging to any person having possession or control over it or having any proprietary
right or interest’. R v Turner (1971) - your own property can be stolen if its in possession or control of
someone else. Property can belong to more than one person at same time. Lost property under s5 (1) -
property still belongs to owner if they have interest in it. S5(3) - (Davidge v Bennet 1984- You have to use
the property for the purpose it was given. Receiving property by mistake S5 (4) – the defendant has a
legal obligation to return the money. (Attorney Generals 1983 reference – employer paid more than
entitled salary to employee)
Dishonesty not defined - 2(1) sets out the 3 negatives S2(1)(a) - believes they have a right in the law to
the property (b) – believes owner would consent to the taking (c)- owner cannot be discovered by taking
the reasonable steps. If not apply objective test. R v Ghosh and confirmed in Ivey v Genting Casinos.
‘Was D dishonest by the standards of ordinary, honest and reasonable people?
Intention to permanently deprive - S.6 (1) The D intends to continue to treat the property as their own
regardless of the owners' rights…Intending to replace property – Velumyl (Not same)
Borrowing property Lloyd (virtue value gone) Conditional intent- Easom (worth stealing)
Under s1.1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and
Voluntary - DPP v Majewski – drew distinction
Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 – evidence 2
between specific/ basic intent crimes. Specific –
doctors, 1 expert in mental health. This burden
defence available if so intoxicated that they could
is for the defendant prove. M’NAUGHTENS case
not form the men’s rea. Basic intent – defence is not
defined insanity as having 3 stages. (Defect
available because intoxication is evidence of
Clarke – held that temporary absent mindedness or
reckless. (Richardson & Irwin – defence available if
forgetfulness is not enough.) Disease; Mind
the defendant would not see the risk sober.) Dutch
Hennessy – Diabetes (high blood sugar) -
courage (Gallagher) defendant uses drink 4
Defendant claimed defence after driving a stolen
strength to commit crime/had men’s rea before.
vehicle. Sullvian – Epilepsy – injured a lady during
Involuntary – Kingston available - both specific and
a fit. Burgess – Sleep walking Nature: Windle –
basic intent crime. Defence is available if D was so
Killed his wife and said ‘I suppose ill hang for this’.
intoxicated that they could not form men’s rea.
‘Drugged intent is still an intent’ Hartie – Automatism - Bratty v AG– Lord Denning defined
unexpected effects of prescribed drugs. “An act done by the muscles without control of the
Self-defence - Section 76 criminal justice & mind” Hill v Baxter - Reflex/Spasm - Reacting to
immigration act 2008 states defence can be used: bees or sneeze/ Quick - Diabetes (low blood
to protect yourself, someone, prevent a sugar) Not eating regularly (external influence)
crime.S.76(3) defendant genuinely believes the force Broome V Perkins actions must be involuntary,
was necessary in circumstances - subjective test. lost full control, not partial. Bailey: not self-induced
s76(4) if the d made mistake as long as it was genuine – diabetic was eating raw sugar/reckless Lord
defence is available. s76 (5) defendant mistake due to denning ‘without control of the mind’ no men’s rea
intoxicated: defence lost. pre emptive strike – Duress -Valderama – Vega there must be a threat
defendant uses force 1st because they are about to be of death of serious injury. Hasan – the threat must
hit. Beckford (law doesn’t expect u to wait to be hit). be immediate or almost immediate, so you don’t
Lord Morris in Palmer – if under attack not expected to have time to go to the police and no opportunity to
be able to judge exact force they should return. If escape.Graham –2 stage test… Did defendant act
acted honestly and instinctively – get defence. because he reasonably believed that if he did not,
excessive force: Martin lose defence) Force in home – he would suffer? Would a sober person of
crime and courts act 2013 – can be disproportionate reasonable firmness have responded by committing
as long as it’s not grossly disproportionate. a criminal offence? Self-induced duress – if you
join a gang/bring pressure on yourself (Hasan)
with the intention to permanently deprive.’
Section 3 “any assumption of the rights to an owner amount to appropriation.” R v Morris (1983) Any
assumption of the owners' rights is an appropriation R v Gomez (1993) held a dishonest appropriation.
Lawrence – owner consents.
Section 4- property ‘includes money, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible
property’. Oxford v moss (knowledge).
5(1) property = ‘belonging to any person having possession or control over it or having any proprietary
right or interest’. R v Turner (1971) - your own property can be stolen if its in possession or control of
someone else. Property can belong to more than one person at same time. Lost property under s5 (1) -
property still belongs to owner if they have interest in it. S5(3) - (Davidge v Bennet 1984- You have to use
the property for the purpose it was given. Receiving property by mistake S5 (4) – the defendant has a
legal obligation to return the money. (Attorney Generals 1983 reference – employer paid more than
entitled salary to employee)
Dishonesty not defined - 2(1) sets out the 3 negatives S2(1)(a) - believes they have a right in the law to
the property (b) – believes owner would consent to the taking (c)- owner cannot be discovered by taking
the reasonable steps. If not apply objective test. R v Ghosh and confirmed in Ivey v Genting Casinos.
‘Was D dishonest by the standards of ordinary, honest and reasonable people?
Intention to permanently deprive - S.6 (1) The D intends to continue to treat the property as their own
regardless of the owners' rights…Intending to replace property – Velumyl (Not same)
Borrowing property Lloyd (virtue value gone) Conditional intent- Easom (worth stealing)
Under s1.1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and
Voluntary - DPP v Majewski – drew distinction
Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 – evidence 2
between specific/ basic intent crimes. Specific –
doctors, 1 expert in mental health. This burden
defence available if so intoxicated that they could
is for the defendant prove. M’NAUGHTENS case
not form the men’s rea. Basic intent – defence is not
defined insanity as having 3 stages. (Defect
available because intoxication is evidence of
Clarke – held that temporary absent mindedness or
reckless. (Richardson & Irwin – defence available if
forgetfulness is not enough.) Disease; Mind
the defendant would not see the risk sober.) Dutch
Hennessy – Diabetes (high blood sugar) -
courage (Gallagher) defendant uses drink 4
Defendant claimed defence after driving a stolen
strength to commit crime/had men’s rea before.
vehicle. Sullvian – Epilepsy – injured a lady during
Involuntary – Kingston available - both specific and
a fit. Burgess – Sleep walking Nature: Windle –
basic intent crime. Defence is available if D was so
Killed his wife and said ‘I suppose ill hang for this’.
intoxicated that they could not form men’s rea.
‘Drugged intent is still an intent’ Hartie – Automatism - Bratty v AG– Lord Denning defined
unexpected effects of prescribed drugs. “An act done by the muscles without control of the
Self-defence - Section 76 criminal justice & mind” Hill v Baxter - Reflex/Spasm - Reacting to
immigration act 2008 states defence can be used: bees or sneeze/ Quick - Diabetes (low blood
to protect yourself, someone, prevent a sugar) Not eating regularly (external influence)
crime.S.76(3) defendant genuinely believes the force Broome V Perkins actions must be involuntary,
was necessary in circumstances - subjective test. lost full control, not partial. Bailey: not self-induced
s76(4) if the d made mistake as long as it was genuine – diabetic was eating raw sugar/reckless Lord
defence is available. s76 (5) defendant mistake due to denning ‘without control of the mind’ no men’s rea
intoxicated: defence lost. pre emptive strike – Duress -Valderama – Vega there must be a threat
defendant uses force 1st because they are about to be of death of serious injury. Hasan – the threat must
hit. Beckford (law doesn’t expect u to wait to be hit). be immediate or almost immediate, so you don’t
Lord Morris in Palmer – if under attack not expected to have time to go to the police and no opportunity to
be able to judge exact force they should return. If escape.Graham –2 stage test… Did defendant act
acted honestly and instinctively – get defence. because he reasonably believed that if he did not,
excessive force: Martin lose defence) Force in home – he would suffer? Would a sober person of
crime and courts act 2013 – can be disproportionate reasonable firmness have responded by committing
as long as it’s not grossly disproportionate. a criminal offence? Self-induced duress – if you
join a gang/bring pressure on yourself (Hasan)
