Offences Against Property
Aims and Objectives, at the end of
this you should be able to:






State the definition of theft
Explain the actus reus of theft
Explain cases that illustrate the actus reus of
theft
Explain the mens rea for theft
Explain cases that illustrate the mens rea of
theft
Apply the rules to a given scenario
Introduction




Before 1968 Offences Against Property were to be
found in various statutes and common law
precedents.
A report from Criminal Law Revision Committee led
to passing of Theft Act 1968
Majority of Act worked well but parts proved
unworkable – led to Theft Act 1978
Development of new “criminal activities” and some
bad HofL decisions led to Theft (Amendment) Act
1996
Theft

The offence of theft is laid down in
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…..
It is immaterial whether appropriation is
made with a view to gain…”
Key Term- Theft:

The dishonest appropriation of property
belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it
Interpretation of Theft



A person charged with theft will be charged
under S.1(1) of the 1968 Theft Act
BUT
Parliament has included in the Act
interpretation sections to explain the
individual elements of theft.
These are contained in Ss 2 – 6 of the Theft
Act 1968
The elements of theft- must prove
these 5 things:
S1 Theft Act 1968
Mens Rea
Actus Reus
Dishonesty
s2
Appropriation
s3
Property
s4
Belonging to
another
s5
Intention to
permanently deprive
s6
Actus Reus of Theft
Appropriating Property
Belonging to Another
Appropriation

This is defined within S3 Theft Act 1968

Under S.3(1) appropriation can occur in two
ways:By assuming the rights of an owner
Coming by property innocently without
stealing it but then later assuming some
right of the owner
1.
2.
Rights of an Owner?





Right to sell
Right to keep
Right to change/abuse
Right to lend
Right to destroy
R v Morris (1983)

D had switched the price labels of 2 items on the shelf in a
supermarket. The cheaper item he placed into a basket and went to
the checkout. He had not gone through checkout when he was
arrested, but his conviction for theft was upheld as Lord Roskill in the
SC said:
– “ it is enough for the prosecution if they have proved…the
assumption of any of the rights of the owner of the goods in
question.”
–
This shows that there does not have to be an assumption of all the
rights, which is sensible, as quite often as in this case only one
right- the right of possession has been assumed. In Morris the
right was the owners right to put a price label on the goods
Can consent to take still be
appropriation?

If goods come into the possession of the
defendant with the consent of the owner can
this be appropriate for the purposes of theft?
R v Gomez(1993)
Test = assumption of owner’s rights =
appropriation.
How they get property is irrelevant!

R v Lawrence (1971)- appropriation can take place even when
property has been handed over with the consent of the owner
(taxi fare)

R v Gomez (1993)- mere touching of the property is
appropriation

R v Hopkins & Kendrick (1996)

R v Hinks (2000)- an appropriation can take place even where
there is a voluntary gift

Atakpu (1994)- you cannot steal the same property twice
Property

This is defined by S.4 Theft Act 1968- ‘Property’
includes money and all other property, real or
personal including things in action and other
intangible property

S.4 divides property into 4 categories
Tangible property
Intangible property
Land
Wild animals, plants and flowers





Tangible property – possession that physically exist – books,
cars, furniture etc

Intangible property – “Things in action” – things which are
legally enforceable by do not physically exist – debts, copyright,
patent rights etc Marshall 1998- the court took into account the
value when convicting D’s who had asked for tickets finished
with by travellers that still had some value left on them
This does not extend to general information or secrets
Oxford v Moss (1978) ‘borrowed’ an exam paper he was due to
sit but intended to return it and he did not steal the questions as
they were not property
Things that cannot be stolen




Land – common sense dictates that you cannot steal land.
But S.4(2) lays down 3 exceptions which can amount to theft:
1- When a trustee or personal representative takes land in
breach of their duties, or when someone not in possession of
the land severs anything forming part of the land from it ( dig up
turf, dismantle a wall), and where a tenant takes a fixture or
structure from the land let to him
Wild Animals, Plants and Flowers – the Theft Act 1968 lays
down some very specific rules relating to wild animals, plants
and flowers – see Ss4(3) and 4(4)- a wild creature can only be
stolen if someone else already has possession of it
Things which cannot be stolen



Wild flowers/fruits etc. unless on private
property
However if this is done with the intention of
selling them then may be considered as
theft- e.g. holly to make and sell Christmas
wreaths
Electricity- another sort of intangible property
which cannot be stolen, but there is a
separate offence of dishonestly using
electricity.
Belonging to Another

This is defined by S. 5 Theft Act 1968

This usually causes little problem as it is usually clear that
property belongs to another at time of appropriation.

BUT it must be noted that the definition is much wider than just
ownership – can include possession as well
R v Turner (1971)- can be convicted of theft where he steals
another persons rights over goods- rights over a car were
stolen
Possession or control




Obviously the owner of a property usually has this, but there
are other circumstances in which a person can have either of
these e.g. a hire period, if you lend something to someonecould be guilty of stealing from both parties
Also if possession is not lawful e.g. A steals from B and C
steals from A C can steal be guilty of theft- this shows a wide
definition of ‘belonging to’ and in Turner case lead to a person
being convicted of stealing his own car
Woodman- it is possible for someone to be in possession or
control of property without knowing it is there e.g. scrap metal in
a disused factory.
Basildon Magistrates Court case 2010- questioned the idea of
whether property was in anyone's possession.
What if Property given to Defendant for
a Specific Purpose?

If property is given to a person for a specific purposes and the
property is then used for a different purpose if this theft?
Davidge v Bunnett (1984)- where money or cheques are given for
a particular propose, they must be used for that purpose
R v Wain (1996)- where money is held in trust for someone, the
money is belonging to another
R v Hall (1972)- Prosecution must prove that there was an
obligation to retain and deal with deposits of money in a
particular way.
What if Defendant is given the property
by Mistake?

If a person is given property by mistake who does it belong to
the recipient or the original owner?
The original owner
 Therefore duty to return
AG Reference (No1 of 1983) (1984)- D’s salary was paid into her
bank account, employees made an overpayment and she was
charged with theft but acquitted by the jury. But the CA decided
that the law was clear- a person was under an obligation to
return money and if dishonest intention not to return money
than all elements of theft were present.

If mistake was so fundamental it
prevented ownership of goods
from passing to D

If the D knows abut the mistake at time of
transfer of ownership by V, this prevents
ownership from passing.
There must be a legal obligation to
restore money

There must be a legal obligation to restore
the property, however the case of Gilks 1972
shows that in some situations there is no
legal obligation to restore money- betting
transactions not enforceable at law.
Operates where there have been
overpayments made

A-G’s Reference (No. 1 of 1983)
It operates only to vest a notional
ownership in V

It does not supply any of the other elements
required for theft such as appropriation and
dishonesty
Self test Questions







Which section of which Act defines theft?
What are the points which need to be proven for AR of theft?
What are the main points for MR of theft?
Give 2 difference cases or examples of appropriation
Can a defendant appropriate property when the owner has
consented?
Give the name and facts of a case where the effect of consent
of the owner was considered
Can a D be guilty of theft when the owner of the property has
consented to the appropriation and that consent was not
obtained by any deception?
Mens Rea of Theft
1.
2.
Dishonesty
Intention to
permanently deprive
Dishonesty

This is defined by S.2 Theft Act 1968
Well, sort of!!!!
There has to be dishonesty
And the intention to permanently deprive

Parliament has not defined what they mean
by dishonesty but have given 3 examples of
what is not considered dishonest.

If act of defendant does not fit one of these 3
situations then jury must decide if they think
the defendant acted dishonestly.

This is a difficult question for a jury and after
some uncertainty the Courts in R v Ghosh
laid down a two part test for dishonesty.
R v Ghosh (1982)- 2 part test

Would the accused's conduct be viewed as
dishonest by ordinary people?- if no the
person is NG as not dishonest (objective)

If yes, then did the accused realise that their
conduct was contrary to the standards of
honest and reasonable people? (subjective)
3 statutory beliefs:

If D holds any one of these , he is not dishonest

Genuine belief is enough- it does not have to be reasonable
1-if he appropriates the property in the belief he has the
right in law to deprive the other person of it (himself or a
third party)
2-if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would
have the other persons consent if they knew of the
appropriation and the circumstances of it
3-If he appropriates the property in the belief that the
person to whom the property belongs cannot be
discovered by taking reasonable steps.



Intention to Permanently Deprive

This is defined by S.6 Theft Act 1968

The owner does not have to be permanently deprived of the
goods for it to be theft.
Can apply to hirer's if intention is to deprive for duration of lease
If a D has not made up his mind to permanently deprive then he
cannot be guilty of theft no matter what he does to the property
When the D takes money in form of notes and coins, he intends
permanent deprivation unless he returns the very same notes
and coins
The prosecution only has to prove that was the defendant’s
intention




Cases


Easom 1971- conditional intention, where
the D examines property first to see whether
it is worth stealing. If returned as decided not
worth stealing there is no theft. The act is
‘permanently’ not ‘temporary’
Lloyd 1985- ‘lent’ a film from cinema to make
a copy- conviction for theft was quashed
because the film was returned in it original
state and there was no intention to
permanently deprive
“Borrowing”

Borrowing is not theft

Unless
The intention of the borrower is such as:“to treat the thing as his own to dispose of
regardless of the other’s rights”
The circumstances of each individual case needs to
be considered to decide the true intentions of the
defendant
R v Velumyl (1989)-even if the D intends to replace money if they
spend the actual money it is permanent deprivation.
A company manager took £1050 from the office safe. He said he
was owed the money by a friend and he would replace it when
friend repaid him.
CA upheld his conviction for theft as he had the intention of
permanently depriving the company of the banknotes taken
from the safe, even if he intended replacing them.
See also:



Chan Man-sin v AG for Hong Kong (1988)
DPP v Lavender
Marshall and others