Theft
a. Definitions
- 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’
- Actus Reus: Appropriating property belonging to another
- Mens Rea: Dishonestly, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
b. ‘Appropriates’
s.3(1) Theft Act 1968: ‘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.’
D can appropriate the same property repeatedly, until he steals it, or the property
ceases to belong to another
R v Morris
D entered grocery stores, taking lower-priced tags from items and sticking them onto
higher-priced ones
Held that it was enough that he had assumed one of the owner’s rights of setting
prices
Held that assumption of any of the rights of the owner will suffice
R v Pitham and Hehl
2 defendant were friends of V, who was in prison
Decided to sell off V’s property
Even though nothing was sold, held that appropriation took place at the time that the
property was offered for sale [because this is an owner’s property right]
Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Cab driver picked up young foreign student who handed him a piece of paper to the
driver with an address
Cab driver took 7 pounds from student with his consent, but actual journey cost 50p
Cab driver convicted of theft; relevant wording was “appropriation” and not
“misappropriation”
Held that appropriation can occur even with consent
a. Definitions
- 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’
- Actus Reus: Appropriating property belonging to another
- Mens Rea: Dishonestly, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
b. ‘Appropriates’
s.3(1) Theft Act 1968: ‘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.’
D can appropriate the same property repeatedly, until he steals it, or the property
ceases to belong to another
R v Morris
D entered grocery stores, taking lower-priced tags from items and sticking them onto
higher-priced ones
Held that it was enough that he had assumed one of the owner’s rights of setting
prices
Held that assumption of any of the rights of the owner will suffice
R v Pitham and Hehl
2 defendant were friends of V, who was in prison
Decided to sell off V’s property
Even though nothing was sold, held that appropriation took place at the time that the
property was offered for sale [because this is an owner’s property right]
Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Cab driver picked up young foreign student who handed him a piece of paper to the
driver with an address
Cab driver took 7 pounds from student with his consent, but actual journey cost 50p
Cab driver convicted of theft; relevant wording was “appropriation” and not
“misappropriation”
Held that appropriation can occur even with consent
