|
Theft is defined in the Theft Act 1968 s1 as;
A person is guilty of theft if they
"dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
Sections 2-6 of the Theft Act 1968 then explain what each of these parts of the definition mean.
The actus reus of theft is made up of;
s3 Appropriation
s4 Property
s5 Belong to another
The mens rea is made up of;
s2 Dishonestly
s6 intention to permanently deprive the other of it
Appropriation
The definition of appropriation is provided by s3(1) which states:
“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 an owner.”
A case example is: R v Pitham & Hehl (1977)
A man who invited the two defendants into his friend’s house while the friend was in prison and then sold them some furniture had been assuming the rights of the owner.
Some protection is offered to the bona fide (in good faith) purchaser of goods by s3(2) which states:
“Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.”
Therefore if a person buys stolen property from the defendant, unaware that it is stolen, s/he will not be guilty of theft if s/he later discovers the truth and decides to keep the property. Nor will s/he be liable for handling stolen goods.
The House of Lords have also made it clear that an assumption of any right of an owner will be an appropriation.
R v Morris (1983)
The defendant switched the price labels of two items which were on the shelf in the supermarket. He then put the item with the new lower price into his basket (which was provided for shoppers by the store) and took the item to the checkout. He was arrested before going through the checkout. His conviction for theft was upheld by the House of Lords who said that;
“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.”
A temporary appropriation can amount to theft.
Corcoran v Anderton (1980)
In this robbery case (the legal principle being the same as for theft) it was held that the full offence takes place when the appropriation is complete. The two defendants tried to take a woman’s handbag by force. They managed to grab hold of the bag but dropped it and ran away. The court held that the appropriation was complete when the defendants got hold of the handbag and were therefore guilty of the full offence not just an attempt, regardless of the fact that they has had run off without the bag.
Accepting a gift can be an appropriation.
R v Hinks (2000)
The defendant was a 38 year old woman who had befriended a man who had a low IQ and was very naïve. He was however mentally capable of understanding the concept of ownership and of making a valid gift. Over a eight month period the defendant accompanied the man on several trips to his building society where he withdrew money from his account. In total he withdrew about £60,000 and deposited it into the defendant’s account. The man also gave her a television. At her trial the judge directed the jury to consider whether the man was so mentally incapable that the defendant herself realised that ordinary decent people would regard it as dishonest to accept a gift from him. The defendant was convicted of the theft of the money and of the television.
On appeal it was argued that if the gift was valid then the acceptance of it could not be theft. The House of Lords dismissed her appeal. This left the civil and the criminal law in conflict which Lord Steyn considered;
“irrelevant to the decision.”
The House of Lords have held that a person can appropriate property even where the owner consents to the taking of property.
Lawrencev MPC (1971)
An Italian student, who spoke very little English, arrived at Victoria Station and showed an address to Lawrence who was a taxi driver. The journey should have cost 50p, but Lawrence told him it would be an expensive trip. The student got out £1 note and offered it to the driver. Lawrence said it wasn’t enough and so the student opened his wallet and allowed Lawrence to help himself to another £6. Lawrence put forward the defence that he had not appropriated the money because the student had consented to him taking it. |Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords rejected this argument and held that there was an appropriation in this situation.
This page is still being developed and will be completed in the near future - please check back soon.
|