Online Criminal Law :Theft Jan 2020 intake
THEFT ACT 1968:THE OFFENCE OF THEFT
S 1(1) Theft Act 1968
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘thief” & ‘steal’
shall be construed accordingly .s 2-6 offer some limited further guidance on the
meaning of each element. In order to establish liability all 5 elements must be
proved.
Actus Reus: Mens Rea:
Appropriates : s 3 Dishonesty: s 2
Property: s 4 Intention of Permanently Depriving the
other of the Property : s 6
Belonging to Another: s5
So what is theft – this is commonly known as stealing . It is important to understand that
all the elements of the actus reus and the mens rea must be satisfied for the offence to be
made out. The offence of theft is said to be a conduct crime. As such technically the
discussion of causation is irrelevant to theft issues as the chain of causation only relates
to establishing liability in result crimes. It has been said that that the offence of theft may
have mutated into a thought crime especially in view of the interpretation of the word
appropriation in cases like Lawrence, Gomez and Hinks. In Wheatley & Penn v
Commissioner of Police of the British Virgin Islands (2006) UKPC held that an intention to
cause loss is not a necessary ingredient in dishonesty. Wheatley had appropriated property
belonging to the government. The Privy Council found that appropriation has been given a
very wide meaning and the disbursements of funds belonging to the government falls within
it.
1|Page Mary George
, Online Criminal Law :Theft Jan 2020 intake
APPROPRIATION: S 3(1) THEFT ACT 1968
S3 (1) Appropriation: any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an
appropriation & 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
Alternative view by :Lord Roskill in
Morris who stated that an
Consent is irrelevant to the issue of appropriation appropriation was “an adverse
Lawrence v MPC [1972]; R v Gomez [1993]; R v Hinks[2000] usurpation” of the rights of the owner.
Consent of the owner was a relevant
consideration in determining whether
In Lawrence a taxi driver gave a lift to an Italian
there was appropriation. The switching
student who did not speak English very well; V of price labels amounted to appropriation
offered D his open wallet so that D could take the because it was an assumption by the
right amount for the fare. The fare was 50p but D defendant of the owner's right to
took £6 determine what price the goods were to
be sold at. If accompanied by mens
rea it would be theft.
Gomez the assistant manager managed to
persuade the manager to sell goods worth Morris took two items from
supermarket shelves and replaced
£17,000 to his accomplice by asking him to accept
the correct labels with ones
2 cheques which were stolen & worthless
showing lower prices. & took them
to checkout, paid the lower price and
Hinks befriended an elderly man of low was arrested. Burnside took the
intelligence & V Accompanied by D withdrew large label off a joint of meat and placed it
sums of $ from his bank acc. & gave it to D. HL on a more expensive joint. His act
was discovered, and he was
held that V’s consent to the appropriation was
arrested before he got to the
irrelevant & the receipt of £ could amount to
checkout. Both defendants were
appropriation. If D was dishonest this could
convicted checkout.
amount to theft
R v Darroux [2018] EWCA
1009:The D filled out claim forms for overtime &expenses, which she gave to her
employers. The claims were grossly inflated. She was charged with theft of the moneys transferred to
her account via bank transfer. In order to gain the conviction, the prosecution had to show that the
money coming into her account came there as a result of her assuming a right of ownership over it.
The key issue is whether she had appropriated the money. She had filled out some claim forms.
Accordingly she had not ‘done’ anything in relation to the money. She had caused the transfer but the
court held that she did not cause it by way of appropriation. She did it by way of writing a false claim
form. The CA quashed her conviction. She was guilty of fraud, but not theft.
2|Page Mary George
THEFT ACT 1968:THE OFFENCE OF THEFT
S 1(1) Theft Act 1968
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘thief” & ‘steal’
shall be construed accordingly .s 2-6 offer some limited further guidance on the
meaning of each element. In order to establish liability all 5 elements must be
proved.
Actus Reus: Mens Rea:
Appropriates : s 3 Dishonesty: s 2
Property: s 4 Intention of Permanently Depriving the
other of the Property : s 6
Belonging to Another: s5
So what is theft – this is commonly known as stealing . It is important to understand that
all the elements of the actus reus and the mens rea must be satisfied for the offence to be
made out. The offence of theft is said to be a conduct crime. As such technically the
discussion of causation is irrelevant to theft issues as the chain of causation only relates
to establishing liability in result crimes. It has been said that that the offence of theft may
have mutated into a thought crime especially in view of the interpretation of the word
appropriation in cases like Lawrence, Gomez and Hinks. In Wheatley & Penn v
Commissioner of Police of the British Virgin Islands (2006) UKPC held that an intention to
cause loss is not a necessary ingredient in dishonesty. Wheatley had appropriated property
belonging to the government. The Privy Council found that appropriation has been given a
very wide meaning and the disbursements of funds belonging to the government falls within
it.
1|Page Mary George
, Online Criminal Law :Theft Jan 2020 intake
APPROPRIATION: S 3(1) THEFT ACT 1968
S3 (1) Appropriation: any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an
appropriation & 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
Alternative view by :Lord Roskill in
Morris who stated that an
Consent is irrelevant to the issue of appropriation appropriation was “an adverse
Lawrence v MPC [1972]; R v Gomez [1993]; R v Hinks[2000] usurpation” of the rights of the owner.
Consent of the owner was a relevant
consideration in determining whether
In Lawrence a taxi driver gave a lift to an Italian
there was appropriation. The switching
student who did not speak English very well; V of price labels amounted to appropriation
offered D his open wallet so that D could take the because it was an assumption by the
right amount for the fare. The fare was 50p but D defendant of the owner's right to
took £6 determine what price the goods were to
be sold at. If accompanied by mens
rea it would be theft.
Gomez the assistant manager managed to
persuade the manager to sell goods worth Morris took two items from
supermarket shelves and replaced
£17,000 to his accomplice by asking him to accept
the correct labels with ones
2 cheques which were stolen & worthless
showing lower prices. & took them
to checkout, paid the lower price and
Hinks befriended an elderly man of low was arrested. Burnside took the
intelligence & V Accompanied by D withdrew large label off a joint of meat and placed it
sums of $ from his bank acc. & gave it to D. HL on a more expensive joint. His act
was discovered, and he was
held that V’s consent to the appropriation was
arrested before he got to the
irrelevant & the receipt of £ could amount to
checkout. Both defendants were
appropriation. If D was dishonest this could
convicted checkout.
amount to theft
R v Darroux [2018] EWCA
1009:The D filled out claim forms for overtime &expenses, which she gave to her
employers. The claims were grossly inflated. She was charged with theft of the moneys transferred to
her account via bank transfer. In order to gain the conviction, the prosecution had to show that the
money coming into her account came there as a result of her assuming a right of ownership over it.
The key issue is whether she had appropriated the money. She had filled out some claim forms.
Accordingly she had not ‘done’ anything in relation to the money. She had caused the transfer but the
court held that she did not cause it by way of appropriation. She did it by way of writing a false claim
form. The CA quashed her conviction. She was guilty of fraud, but not theft.
2|Page Mary George
