Property Offences
Theft
Theft is defined under s1 Theft Act 1968 as ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive them of
it’. This is a triable either way offence meaning it will be heard in a magistrates or crown
court and faces a punishment of up to 7 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.The
actus reus of theft is laid out in several sections -
● ‘Appropriation’ S.3 Theft Act 1968 - ‘Assumption by a person of the rights of an
owner’. For example, taking (R v Vinall) someone's wallet from their pocket,
destroying property or changing price tags (R v Morris) (the definition of property is
covered later in the act). For appropriation to occur, the thief must do something that
assumes at least one of the owners rights e.g. to sell (R v Pitham and Hehl), destroy
and/or lend their property. R v Hinks shows the owner may consent to the defendants
appropriation if the owner thought that D was taking what was owed to them.
● ‘Property’ S.4 Theft Act 1968 - There is a broad definition of what property is under
this section as it includes ‘money and all other property, real or personal, including
things in action and other intangible property’. Money means coins and banknotes of
any currency, ‘real property’ refers to land and buildings. ‘Personal property’ refers to
moveable items such as jewellery, clothes, cars etc. (R v Kelly and Lindsay). ‘Things
in action’ refers to cheques, a right arising under a trust and a debt. ‘Other intangible
property’ includes other rights that can be stolen but have no physical presence e.g.
computer data (Oxford v Moss). Under s4 (3) Theft Act 1968, wild plants cannot be
stolen. Under s4 (4) Theft Act 1968, wild animals cannot be stolen unless held in
captivity such as a zoo.
● ‘Belonging to another’ S.5 Theft Act 1968 - S.5(1) Gives a wide definition of having
possession or control (R v Woodman) of the property or having any proprietary
interest (R v Webster) in it is sufficient.
The mens rea of theft is also laid out in different sections -
● ‘Dishonestly’ S.2 Theft Act 1968 - There is no definition but S.2(1) states it can be
through wanting to gain or for the thief’s own benefit. It also gives some information
on what is not considered ‘dishonest’ - S.2(1)(a) It will not be dishonest if D believes
he has in law the right to deprive the other of it (R v Robinson), S.2(2)(b) if D believes
he would have the others consent then it will not be dishonest, S.2(2)(c) it will not be
dishonest if the person who the property belongs to cannot be found (R v Small). If D
has any one of the above beliefs then he will not be guilty of theft. The test for
dishonesty was set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos - 1. What was D’s actual state of
knowledge or belief as to the facts? 2. Would an ordinary and reasonable person,
believing the same facts as the D, consider them to be dishoney? R v Barton and
Booth confirmed the test for dishonesty was set out in Ivey.
● ‘Intention to permanently deprive’ S.6 Theft Act 1968 - Usually, there is no doubt that
D had this intention. This is true even where D intends to replace property later (R v
Velumyl). There is clear intention to deprive if D destroys the property (DPP v
Lavender). Borrowing does not normally constitute theft however if the borrowing
lasts for a period equivalent to outright taking then it will (R v Lloyd)
Theft
Theft is defined under s1 Theft Act 1968 as ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive them of
it’. This is a triable either way offence meaning it will be heard in a magistrates or crown
court and faces a punishment of up to 7 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.The
actus reus of theft is laid out in several sections -
● ‘Appropriation’ S.3 Theft Act 1968 - ‘Assumption by a person of the rights of an
owner’. For example, taking (R v Vinall) someone's wallet from their pocket,
destroying property or changing price tags (R v Morris) (the definition of property is
covered later in the act). For appropriation to occur, the thief must do something that
assumes at least one of the owners rights e.g. to sell (R v Pitham and Hehl), destroy
and/or lend their property. R v Hinks shows the owner may consent to the defendants
appropriation if the owner thought that D was taking what was owed to them.
● ‘Property’ S.4 Theft Act 1968 - There is a broad definition of what property is under
this section as it includes ‘money and all other property, real or personal, including
things in action and other intangible property’. Money means coins and banknotes of
any currency, ‘real property’ refers to land and buildings. ‘Personal property’ refers to
moveable items such as jewellery, clothes, cars etc. (R v Kelly and Lindsay). ‘Things
in action’ refers to cheques, a right arising under a trust and a debt. ‘Other intangible
property’ includes other rights that can be stolen but have no physical presence e.g.
computer data (Oxford v Moss). Under s4 (3) Theft Act 1968, wild plants cannot be
stolen. Under s4 (4) Theft Act 1968, wild animals cannot be stolen unless held in
captivity such as a zoo.
● ‘Belonging to another’ S.5 Theft Act 1968 - S.5(1) Gives a wide definition of having
possession or control (R v Woodman) of the property or having any proprietary
interest (R v Webster) in it is sufficient.
The mens rea of theft is also laid out in different sections -
● ‘Dishonestly’ S.2 Theft Act 1968 - There is no definition but S.2(1) states it can be
through wanting to gain or for the thief’s own benefit. It also gives some information
on what is not considered ‘dishonest’ - S.2(1)(a) It will not be dishonest if D believes
he has in law the right to deprive the other of it (R v Robinson), S.2(2)(b) if D believes
he would have the others consent then it will not be dishonest, S.2(2)(c) it will not be
dishonest if the person who the property belongs to cannot be found (R v Small). If D
has any one of the above beliefs then he will not be guilty of theft. The test for
dishonesty was set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos - 1. What was D’s actual state of
knowledge or belief as to the facts? 2. Would an ordinary and reasonable person,
believing the same facts as the D, consider them to be dishoney? R v Barton and
Booth confirmed the test for dishonesty was set out in Ivey.
● ‘Intention to permanently deprive’ S.6 Theft Act 1968 - Usually, there is no doubt that
D had this intention. This is true even where D intends to replace property later (R v
Velumyl). There is clear intention to deprive if D destroys the property (DPP v
Lavender). Borrowing does not normally constitute theft however if the borrowing
lasts for a period equivalent to outright taking then it will (R v Lloyd)
