Criminal law – theft notes
- This offence has been heavily criticised because it places almost the entire burden for its
liability on the mens rea of dishonesty.
- The starting point for the offence is the 8th report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee
1966 which largely became enacted as the Theft Act 1968.
- the maximum sentence on indictment in the Crown Court is 7 years.
- Section 1 of the Theft Act contains the definition:
Actus reus Mens rea
Appropriating property belonging toDishonesty and intention to permanently
another. deprive another.
^ can be direct or indirect intention – see
Woolin test.
- Appropriation – the assumption by the defendant of one of the owner’s rights over a piece
of property.
- Dishonesty – the defendant acting in a way regarded as dishonest by the standards of the
community, and he or she is aware of that.
Definition of theft according to the Theft Act 1968 s1:
1) …dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it; and ‘thief’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly.
2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or is made for the
thief’s own benefit.
The elements of theft
1. Dishonestly -s2
2. Appropriates -s3
3. Property -s4
4. belonging to another – s5
5. With the intention of permanent deprivation -s6
- All five of these elements must be established to find guilt of this offence as in the case of
Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626.
Appropriation
“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 [1984] AC 320 (HL) ^ examines this definition.
- ^Lord Roskill said in obiter dicta – appropriation requires the absence of consent by the
owner – this contrasts the verdict in Lawrence
- A key element of appropriation is interfering with one of the rights of the owner.
- It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or is made for the
thief’s own benefit.
What is sufficient for appropriation?
- Assumption of any rights of the owner is sufficient for appropriation e.g. touching another’s
property, putting it up for sale, destroying it, or keeping it etc.
, - An owner has the exclusive right to touch, move, sell, lend, use, destroy, or consume
his/her property – doing any of these will amount to appropriation.
- According to Morris [1984] AC 320, property is appropriated when any of the owner’s rights
are assumed and thus it need not be shown that all of their rights have been assumed, just
one.
- Changing the labels on an item in a shop is appropriation because the right to put labels on
belongs to the owner.
- This allows the court to convict a defendant who manipulates a victim’s property rights
without ever fully possessing the property.
- The act of appropriation can be a continuing process – Atakpu [1994] QB 59 – one can
appropriate an item any number of times until all the ingredients of theft occur together
Appropriation by omission
- There is no strict guideline for appropriation by omission but there are two views to
consider:
1. The defendant is under a duty to return the item and, in light of this duty, the omission
could be liable to criminal punishment.
2. If no act is done with the property, then there is no appropriation.
Consent and appropriation
- It is relevant whether the owner consents to the appropriation – Lawrence and Morris.
- Clarification in Dobson v General Accident and Fire Life Assurance Corp plc [1990] 1 QB 274
as resolved in Gomez [1993] AC 442 and applied in Hinks [2000] UKHL 53].
- It was held in Hinks that a transaction which constituted a valid gift can still be appropriation
if obtained dishonestly – consent obtained by deception/duress is not valid.
Does a purchaser of stolen property appropriate it?
- Section 3.2 provides that a person who buys stolen property for value in good faith will not
be said to appropriate the property when he realises that the property is stolen.
- ^ ‘value’ – does not mean that the true market value must have been paid, simply that the
property must not have been received as a gift.
- It the transferee decides to sell the goods upon realising that he does not have a good title
to them and does not inform the buyer then he is guilty of fraud and if he does inform the
buyer then the buyer is guilty of receiving stolen goods and the original transferee will be an
accessory to that offence.
- ^ the protection of S3.2 is only valid if the transferee keeps the property.
What constitutes property?
S4 Theft Act 1968 – ‘money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action
and other intangible property’.
S4 provides that two types of property are not considered property for the purposes of this Act,
these are land and wild animals – though there are exceptions to this.
- Real property – Land S4.2 - cannot be stolen unless the defendant is a trustee or personal
representative or when a person in possession of the land under tenancy appropriates a
fixture e.g. a sink.
- This offence has been heavily criticised because it places almost the entire burden for its
liability on the mens rea of dishonesty.
- The starting point for the offence is the 8th report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee
1966 which largely became enacted as the Theft Act 1968.
- the maximum sentence on indictment in the Crown Court is 7 years.
- Section 1 of the Theft Act contains the definition:
Actus reus Mens rea
Appropriating property belonging toDishonesty and intention to permanently
another. deprive another.
^ can be direct or indirect intention – see
Woolin test.
- Appropriation – the assumption by the defendant of one of the owner’s rights over a piece
of property.
- Dishonesty – the defendant acting in a way regarded as dishonest by the standards of the
community, and he or she is aware of that.
Definition of theft according to the Theft Act 1968 s1:
1) …dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it; and ‘thief’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly.
2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or is made for the
thief’s own benefit.
The elements of theft
1. Dishonestly -s2
2. Appropriates -s3
3. Property -s4
4. belonging to another – s5
5. With the intention of permanent deprivation -s6
- All five of these elements must be established to find guilt of this offence as in the case of
Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626.
Appropriation
“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 [1984] AC 320 (HL) ^ examines this definition.
- ^Lord Roskill said in obiter dicta – appropriation requires the absence of consent by the
owner – this contrasts the verdict in Lawrence
- A key element of appropriation is interfering with one of the rights of the owner.
- It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or is made for the
thief’s own benefit.
What is sufficient for appropriation?
- Assumption of any rights of the owner is sufficient for appropriation e.g. touching another’s
property, putting it up for sale, destroying it, or keeping it etc.
, - An owner has the exclusive right to touch, move, sell, lend, use, destroy, or consume
his/her property – doing any of these will amount to appropriation.
- According to Morris [1984] AC 320, property is appropriated when any of the owner’s rights
are assumed and thus it need not be shown that all of their rights have been assumed, just
one.
- Changing the labels on an item in a shop is appropriation because the right to put labels on
belongs to the owner.
- This allows the court to convict a defendant who manipulates a victim’s property rights
without ever fully possessing the property.
- The act of appropriation can be a continuing process – Atakpu [1994] QB 59 – one can
appropriate an item any number of times until all the ingredients of theft occur together
Appropriation by omission
- There is no strict guideline for appropriation by omission but there are two views to
consider:
1. The defendant is under a duty to return the item and, in light of this duty, the omission
could be liable to criminal punishment.
2. If no act is done with the property, then there is no appropriation.
Consent and appropriation
- It is relevant whether the owner consents to the appropriation – Lawrence and Morris.
- Clarification in Dobson v General Accident and Fire Life Assurance Corp plc [1990] 1 QB 274
as resolved in Gomez [1993] AC 442 and applied in Hinks [2000] UKHL 53].
- It was held in Hinks that a transaction which constituted a valid gift can still be appropriation
if obtained dishonestly – consent obtained by deception/duress is not valid.
Does a purchaser of stolen property appropriate it?
- Section 3.2 provides that a person who buys stolen property for value in good faith will not
be said to appropriate the property when he realises that the property is stolen.
- ^ ‘value’ – does not mean that the true market value must have been paid, simply that the
property must not have been received as a gift.
- It the transferee decides to sell the goods upon realising that he does not have a good title
to them and does not inform the buyer then he is guilty of fraud and if he does inform the
buyer then the buyer is guilty of receiving stolen goods and the original transferee will be an
accessory to that offence.
- ^ the protection of S3.2 is only valid if the transferee keeps the property.
What constitutes property?
S4 Theft Act 1968 – ‘money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action
and other intangible property’.
S4 provides that two types of property are not considered property for the purposes of this Act,
these are land and wild animals – though there are exceptions to this.
- Real property – Land S4.2 - cannot be stolen unless the defendant is a trustee or personal
representative or when a person in possession of the land under tenancy appropriates a
fixture e.g. a sink.
