Theft
Appropriation
Width of Appropriation
The actus reus of theft is “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner” as
stated in s3(1). The rights of an owner include selling or destroying the property as
well as possessing it, consuming it, using it, lending it, or hiring it out.
To satisfy this element of the offence, the defendant must do an act which takes over
one of the owner’s rights as stated in R v Pitham and Hehl.
However, in R v Morris, assumption was described as taking ‘any’ of the owner’s
rights.
In many cases, judges use this definition instead of the one in the Act.
Arguably, this goes beyond what Parliament intended.
This leads to issues involving law made by judges, not Parliament.
As a result, many question whether this is a correct test for this section of the
offence.
Assumption at one point in time
Following the Gomez, where an employee persuaded a shop manager to accept
payments for goods which he knew to be stolen, appropriation is viewed as occurring
at one point in time.
This is illustrated by the case of Atakpu and Abrahams, where defendants brought
stolen cars into the UK to sell them. As they appropriated the cars in another
jurisdiction, the resulting conduct did not amount to theft.
This can be criticised on the grounds that the appropriation was an ongoing part of
the theft. The defendants were still assuming the right of an owner by bringing the
cars into this country.
Moreover, the principle can be criticised for contradicting the offence of robbery,
whereby appropriation is viewed as an ongoing process. This was confirmed in the
cases of Hale and Lockley.
Theft of Gifts
The case of Lawrence, where the defendant overcharged and Italian student for a taxi
fare, demonstrates that there can be an appropriation even where the owner
consents to the taking.
Whilst this can be criticised on the grounds that the appropriation is legitimate under
the civil law, it seems right to charge a defendant who has obtained property by
deceit.
In this regard, perhaps the actual issue lies with adjustments made to the law in
recent years. Prior to 2006, defendants could be charged with the old defence of
obtaining property by deception under s15. As this is no longer the case, it can be
suggested that the law has been overcomplicated.
Appropriation
Width of Appropriation
The actus reus of theft is “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner” as
stated in s3(1). The rights of an owner include selling or destroying the property as
well as possessing it, consuming it, using it, lending it, or hiring it out.
To satisfy this element of the offence, the defendant must do an act which takes over
one of the owner’s rights as stated in R v Pitham and Hehl.
However, in R v Morris, assumption was described as taking ‘any’ of the owner’s
rights.
In many cases, judges use this definition instead of the one in the Act.
Arguably, this goes beyond what Parliament intended.
This leads to issues involving law made by judges, not Parliament.
As a result, many question whether this is a correct test for this section of the
offence.
Assumption at one point in time
Following the Gomez, where an employee persuaded a shop manager to accept
payments for goods which he knew to be stolen, appropriation is viewed as occurring
at one point in time.
This is illustrated by the case of Atakpu and Abrahams, where defendants brought
stolen cars into the UK to sell them. As they appropriated the cars in another
jurisdiction, the resulting conduct did not amount to theft.
This can be criticised on the grounds that the appropriation was an ongoing part of
the theft. The defendants were still assuming the right of an owner by bringing the
cars into this country.
Moreover, the principle can be criticised for contradicting the offence of robbery,
whereby appropriation is viewed as an ongoing process. This was confirmed in the
cases of Hale and Lockley.
Theft of Gifts
The case of Lawrence, where the defendant overcharged and Italian student for a taxi
fare, demonstrates that there can be an appropriation even where the owner
consents to the taking.
Whilst this can be criticised on the grounds that the appropriation is legitimate under
the civil law, it seems right to charge a defendant who has obtained property by
deceit.
In this regard, perhaps the actual issue lies with adjustments made to the law in
recent years. Prior to 2006, defendants could be charged with the old defence of
obtaining property by deception under s15. As this is no longer the case, it can be
suggested that the law has been overcomplicated.
