LCR4805
Assignment 2
Semester 2
Unique No: 801278
2025
, LCR4805
Assessment 2
Semester 2
801278
Q1. “Can information be stolen?” Common-law theft and technological change in
South Africa (with comparative insights)
1. Introduction and framing of the issue
We live in an information-driven economy. Businesses and individuals constantly
generate, store, transmit, copy and monetise “information” (from personal data to trade
secrets and digital content). The practical question (it happens every day) is
straightforward: someone copies or exfiltrates valuable data have they committed theft?
The legal question is narrower: do South African legal principles recognise “information”
(or data) as something that can be stolen, and if not, has the law otherwise adapted to
criminalise equivalent conduct?
This answer first unpacks the common-law definition of theft and why “information” has
historically sat awkwardly within it. It then shows how South African statute (especially
the Cybercrimes Act 19 of 2020) has modernised the position both by clarifying theft
doctrine and by creating targeted cyber-offences that address harmful dealings in data.
Finally, it compares approaches in selected foreign jurisdictions and offers a reasoned
conclusion.
2. Common-law theft: why information was a problem
2.1 Classic definition and its implications
At common law, theft is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another, with
the intention permanently to deprive the owner thereof. Historically South African texts
expressed this with the language of contrectatio of movable corporeal property in plain
Assignment 2
Semester 2
Unique No: 801278
2025
, LCR4805
Assessment 2
Semester 2
801278
Q1. “Can information be stolen?” Common-law theft and technological change in
South Africa (with comparative insights)
1. Introduction and framing of the issue
We live in an information-driven economy. Businesses and individuals constantly
generate, store, transmit, copy and monetise “information” (from personal data to trade
secrets and digital content). The practical question (it happens every day) is
straightforward: someone copies or exfiltrates valuable data have they committed theft?
The legal question is narrower: do South African legal principles recognise “information”
(or data) as something that can be stolen, and if not, has the law otherwise adapted to
criminalise equivalent conduct?
This answer first unpacks the common-law definition of theft and why “information” has
historically sat awkwardly within it. It then shows how South African statute (especially
the Cybercrimes Act 19 of 2020) has modernised the position both by clarifying theft
doctrine and by creating targeted cyber-offences that address harmful dealings in data.
Finally, it compares approaches in selected foreign jurisdictions and offers a reasoned
conclusion.
2. Common-law theft: why information was a problem
2.1 Classic definition and its implications
At common law, theft is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another, with
the intention permanently to deprive the owner thereof. Historically South African texts
expressed this with the language of contrectatio of movable corporeal property in plain
