LCR4805
Assignment 2 Semester 2 2026
Unique number:
Due date: September 2026
QUESTION 1
1 (a) Theft of information and technological development
The common law crime of theft developed at a time when property was mainly
understood as something physical that could be taken away. A traditional formulation
describes theft as the unlawful and intentional appropriation of movable property
belonging to another person, with the intention to deprive that person of the property
permanently.1 The difficulty in the information age is that data can be copied without
physically removing the original record, which makes the old idea of taking a tangible
thing difficult to apply directly.
South African law has already shown that theft is not permanently tied to physical
objects. In S v Graham, the Appellate Division accepted that money represented by
, QUESTION 1
1 (a) Theft of information and technological development
The common law crime of theft developed at a time when property was mainly
understood as something physical that could be taken away. A traditional formulation
describes theft as the unlawful and intentional appropriation of movable property
belonging to another person, with the intention to deprive that person of the property
permanently.1 The difficulty in the information age is that data can be copied without
physically removing the original record, which makes the old idea of taking a tangible
thing difficult to apply directly.
South African law has already shown that theft is not permanently tied to physical
objects. In S v Graham, the Appellate Division accepted that money represented by
a bank credit can be stolen even though no specific coins or notes are taken. 2 The
court treated the common law as a living system capable of adapting to modern
banking practice. Similar cases dealing with abstract sums of money demonstrate
that the requirement of corporeality had already weakened long before modern
cybercrime became common.3 This development is important because it shows that
the law can recognise value that exists in an incorporeal form.
Information creates a harder problem because copying information does not always
deprive the holder of possession or use. A person who secretly copies a confidential
customer list may obtain something valuable while the original holder still has the
same file. The prescribed ICT Law text recognises this difficulty and records
academic disagreement about whether traditional theft could be stretched far enough
to cover immaterial information.4 Some writers argued that the law of property could
be developed so that certain incorporeal interests become capable of ownership and
theft, while another approach was to expand the criminal law concept of property
1
DP van der Merwe and others, Information and Communications Technology Law (2nd edn, LexisNexis 2016)
69–74.
2
S v Graham 1975 (3) SA 569 (A) 573E–H.
3
DP van der Merwe and others, Information and Communications Technology Law (2nd edn, LexisNexis 2016)
74–75.
4
DP van der Merwe, ‘Knowledge is the Key to Riches: Is the Law, or Anything Else, Protecting it Adequately?’
(2008) 11 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 1, 6–14.
Assignment 2 Semester 2 2026
Unique number:
Due date: September 2026
QUESTION 1
1 (a) Theft of information and technological development
The common law crime of theft developed at a time when property was mainly
understood as something physical that could be taken away. A traditional formulation
describes theft as the unlawful and intentional appropriation of movable property
belonging to another person, with the intention to deprive that person of the property
permanently.1 The difficulty in the information age is that data can be copied without
physically removing the original record, which makes the old idea of taking a tangible
thing difficult to apply directly.
South African law has already shown that theft is not permanently tied to physical
objects. In S v Graham, the Appellate Division accepted that money represented by
, QUESTION 1
1 (a) Theft of information and technological development
The common law crime of theft developed at a time when property was mainly
understood as something physical that could be taken away. A traditional formulation
describes theft as the unlawful and intentional appropriation of movable property
belonging to another person, with the intention to deprive that person of the property
permanently.1 The difficulty in the information age is that data can be copied without
physically removing the original record, which makes the old idea of taking a tangible
thing difficult to apply directly.
South African law has already shown that theft is not permanently tied to physical
objects. In S v Graham, the Appellate Division accepted that money represented by
a bank credit can be stolen even though no specific coins or notes are taken. 2 The
court treated the common law as a living system capable of adapting to modern
banking practice. Similar cases dealing with abstract sums of money demonstrate
that the requirement of corporeality had already weakened long before modern
cybercrime became common.3 This development is important because it shows that
the law can recognise value that exists in an incorporeal form.
Information creates a harder problem because copying information does not always
deprive the holder of possession or use. A person who secretly copies a confidential
customer list may obtain something valuable while the original holder still has the
same file. The prescribed ICT Law text recognises this difficulty and records
academic disagreement about whether traditional theft could be stretched far enough
to cover immaterial information.4 Some writers argued that the law of property could
be developed so that certain incorporeal interests become capable of ownership and
theft, while another approach was to expand the criminal law concept of property
1
DP van der Merwe and others, Information and Communications Technology Law (2nd edn, LexisNexis 2016)
69–74.
2
S v Graham 1975 (3) SA 569 (A) 573E–H.
3
DP van der Merwe and others, Information and Communications Technology Law (2nd edn, LexisNexis 2016)
74–75.
4
DP van der Merwe, ‘Knowledge is the Key to Riches: Is the Law, or Anything Else, Protecting it Adequately?’
(2008) 11 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 1, 6–14.
