11. Thef
Theft is a technical andt comple crime
Statutory basis
Thef Act (Northern rrea(n d) 1696
Section 1(1) basic dtefinition of theft;
(1)A person is guilty of thef if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with
the intention of permanently depriving the other of it and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed
accordingly.
Five eaemen ts of theft
1 Appropriation (actus reus)
2 Property (actus reus)
3 Belonging to another (actus reus)
4 Dishonest (mens rea)
5 Intention to permanently dtepriee (mens rea)
Appropri(ton
Secton 1(2)) – It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made
for the thief's own beneft.
Secton 3(1) – Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an
appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without
stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
R v Morris (1684) – The appropriation took place when there was an adteerse interference with
or usurpation of the rights of an owner
R v Gomez (1663) – Consent no longer important for appropriation
Property
Secton 4(1)t
“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and
other intangible property.
- Landt cannot be stolen un aess D is a trustee, representatiee or has authorisedt power of
attorney andt dteals with the property in breach of trust, OR where D is not in possession
of the property but appropriates anything forming part of the landt by seeering or
causing it to be seeeredt OR where D is a tenant andt appropriates the whole or part of
any fi ture
- Intangible property (intellectual property such as patent, copyright)
- Electricity – Not considteredt property – speci(a offen ce un der S 13
- Deadt bodties; R v Sh(rp (1857).
Beaon gin g to (n other
, Secton 5(1)t
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or
having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an
agreement to transfer or grant an interest).
Wiaai(ms v Phiaaips (1657) – Taking property belonging to another constitutes theft
R v Smith (2)011) – You can steal dtrugs from a dtrug dtealer
Mistake
Secton 5(4)t
Where a person gets property by another's mistake, and is under an obligation to make
restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then, to
the extent of that obligation, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as
belonging to the person entitled to restoration and an intention not to make restoration shall be
regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds.
Dishon esty
More important andt contentious element of theft
Secton 2) – proeidtes a negatiee dtefinition of his honesty in that it proeidtes e amples of what is
not dtishonest, rather than a more positiee dtefinition which wouldt stipulate what dtishonesty
entails
R v Ghosh (1682)) - In dtetermining whether the prosecution has proeedt that the dtefendtant was
acting dtishonestly, a uury must first of all dtecidte whether accordting to the ordtinary standtardts of
reasonable andt honest people what was dtone was dtishonest If it was not dtishonest by those
standtardts, that is the endt of the matter andt the prosecution fails
The test for dtishonesty, known as the Ghosh test, was both obuectiee andt subuectiee The uury
were requiredt to considter before reaching a eerdtict on dtishonesty;
1 Was the act one that an ordtinary dtecent person wouldt considter to be dtishonest?
(obuectiee prong)
2 Must the accusedt haee realisedt that what he was dtoing was, by those standtardts,
dtishonest? (subuectiee prong)
THE SUBJECTrVE [RPMG OF THE GHOSH TEST HAS BEEN RECENTLY OVERRULED BY THE
SUPREME COURT in rvey v Gen tn g C(sin os (2)017)
The lenses through which the condtuct is to be uudtgedt is now purely an objectve on e
Defendtants can NO LONGER rely on the fact that they were unaware that their actions were andt
wouldt be regardtedt as dtishonest The test for dtishonesty is now much e(sier for the
prosecuton
rn ten ton to perm(n en tay deprive
‘Permanently’ is an essential element in criminalising dtishonest appropriation of property D’s
intention to dtepriee rather than to gain
Theft is a technical andt comple crime
Statutory basis
Thef Act (Northern rrea(n d) 1696
Section 1(1) basic dtefinition of theft;
(1)A person is guilty of thef if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with
the intention of permanently depriving the other of it and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed
accordingly.
Five eaemen ts of theft
1 Appropriation (actus reus)
2 Property (actus reus)
3 Belonging to another (actus reus)
4 Dishonest (mens rea)
5 Intention to permanently dtepriee (mens rea)
Appropri(ton
Secton 1(2)) – It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made
for the thief's own beneft.
Secton 3(1) – Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an
appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without
stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
R v Morris (1684) – The appropriation took place when there was an adteerse interference with
or usurpation of the rights of an owner
R v Gomez (1663) – Consent no longer important for appropriation
Property
Secton 4(1)t
“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and
other intangible property.
- Landt cannot be stolen un aess D is a trustee, representatiee or has authorisedt power of
attorney andt dteals with the property in breach of trust, OR where D is not in possession
of the property but appropriates anything forming part of the landt by seeering or
causing it to be seeeredt OR where D is a tenant andt appropriates the whole or part of
any fi ture
- Intangible property (intellectual property such as patent, copyright)
- Electricity – Not considteredt property – speci(a offen ce un der S 13
- Deadt bodties; R v Sh(rp (1857).
Beaon gin g to (n other
, Secton 5(1)t
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or
having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an
agreement to transfer or grant an interest).
Wiaai(ms v Phiaaips (1657) – Taking property belonging to another constitutes theft
R v Smith (2)011) – You can steal dtrugs from a dtrug dtealer
Mistake
Secton 5(4)t
Where a person gets property by another's mistake, and is under an obligation to make
restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then, to
the extent of that obligation, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as
belonging to the person entitled to restoration and an intention not to make restoration shall be
regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds.
Dishon esty
More important andt contentious element of theft
Secton 2) – proeidtes a negatiee dtefinition of his honesty in that it proeidtes e amples of what is
not dtishonest, rather than a more positiee dtefinition which wouldt stipulate what dtishonesty
entails
R v Ghosh (1682)) - In dtetermining whether the prosecution has proeedt that the dtefendtant was
acting dtishonestly, a uury must first of all dtecidte whether accordting to the ordtinary standtardts of
reasonable andt honest people what was dtone was dtishonest If it was not dtishonest by those
standtardts, that is the endt of the matter andt the prosecution fails
The test for dtishonesty, known as the Ghosh test, was both obuectiee andt subuectiee The uury
were requiredt to considter before reaching a eerdtict on dtishonesty;
1 Was the act one that an ordtinary dtecent person wouldt considter to be dtishonest?
(obuectiee prong)
2 Must the accusedt haee realisedt that what he was dtoing was, by those standtardts,
dtishonest? (subuectiee prong)
THE SUBJECTrVE [RPMG OF THE GHOSH TEST HAS BEEN RECENTLY OVERRULED BY THE
SUPREME COURT in rvey v Gen tn g C(sin os (2)017)
The lenses through which the condtuct is to be uudtgedt is now purely an objectve on e
Defendtants can NO LONGER rely on the fact that they were unaware that their actions were andt
wouldt be regardtedt as dtishonest The test for dtishonesty is now much e(sier for the
prosecuton
rn ten ton to perm(n en tay deprive
‘Permanently’ is an essential element in criminalising dtishonest appropriation of property D’s
intention to dtepriee rather than to gain
