Theft

Question 1

Definition of Theft

Answer 1

Definition 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 and steal shall be construed accordingly

Question 2

Element of the claim

Answer 2

Actus Reus

1.) Appropriation s3

2.) Property s4

3.) Belonging to Another s5

Mens Rea

4.) Dishonesty s6

5.) With Intention to permanently Deprive s7

Question 3

What does Appropriation mean and which statute does it come from?

Answer 3

Assuming the rights of the owner

Section 3(1) -> Assuming any one right of the owner

Question 4

Pitham and Hehl [1977]

Answer 4

Friends sold other friends furniture = Appropriation

Question 5

Morris (1984)

Answer 5

Morris (1984) - Assumption of any right - switching price tags = Appropriation

Question 6

Are there any exceptions to appropriation?

Answer 6

S 3(2) Bona Fide purchaser does not amount to appropriation

Question 7

Consent and Appropriation

Answer 7

Lawrence -> Consent is irrelevant -> C opened his wallet to D to take what he needed

**Gomez **-> Consent is irrelevant -> Tricked manager into accepting fake checks

Question 8

Gallaso

Answer 8

Even holding someone else’s money for them amount to appropriation

Question 9

Hinks

Answer 9

Defendant befriended victim who was described as naive. For 6 months, Defendant had been taking victim to cashpoint and got him to withdraw 300 everyday on a daily basis. D accumulated 60,000 pounds in total roughly. Could this be considered as appropriation when she received the cash she became the owner. Lawrence reaffirmed-> Consent is completely irrelevant. She became the owner of that money, how does that make sense? In civil law she had the right over the money. CoA found her guilty and HoL dismissed. Mazo overruled.

Question 10

Property which statute sheds light on this and the definition

Answer 10

“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

S.4(1)(2)(3) Shed light on some examples of Property

Question 11

Oxford v Moss

Answer 11

Confidential information is not property that can be stolen

Student copied an exam paper not guilty of theft

Question 12

Case on Illegal Property

Answer 12

R v Smith Stealing Heroin still amounts to property

Question 13

Do Things in Action Count as Property

Answer 13

Kohn Things in Action count as property

Intangible property rights

Question 14

Do Services count as property

Answer 14

You can not steal services (like a taxi journey or manicure)

Question 15

Are Human Body Parts Property?

Answer 15

Human Body Parts - Generally NO BUT

• Kelly [1998] (body for medical school)
• Yearworth [2009] -> sperm (for spermbank)

If used for specific purposes or skill then yes

Question 16

Belonging to Another

Answer 16

S 5(1) Any proprietary right or interest. It means property can still belong to someone if they own it, even if they do not have it with them. S5(2) 5-(5)

Question 17

Case that decideds when property belongs to another if they are not using it or lost?

Answer 17

Hibbert and McKiernan

• D collected lost balls (in a river) by a golf course owned by a golf club.
• Golf club warned

Held:

His conviction for theft was upheld. The golf club had exercised sufficient control demonstrating both an intention to control for possession and an intention to exclude others.

Even though nobody at the bottom was using them it still belonged to ano

Question 18

Abandoned Property

Answer 18

Abandoned Property is fine but as long as it is genuinely abandoned

Then it does not belong to another

Question 19

Turner

Answer 19

D convicted of theft for stealing his own car from garage after repairs were completed without paying.

In the meantime, the garage were bailees at will. They had a bailment agreement with the original owner so for the original owner needs to pay to get his car back.

S5(1)

Garage in possesion of property

Question 20

R v Hall

Answer 20

D travel agent received money from clients for flight tickets which he used for business expenses.

Not guilty of theft as there was no evidence that D’s clients expected him to retain and deal with their money or its proceeds in a particular way.

S 5(3)

Question 21

AG’s reference (No.1 of 1983)

Answer 21

Police officer was overpaid salary but did not return it.

The money was held not to belong to him.

S5(4)

Question 22

Dishonestly

Answer 22

Ivy Test

Question 23

Exceptions to Dishonesty

Answer 23

2(1)(a): D appropriates believing he has the legal right to deprive the other

R v Terry -> belief does not have to be reasonable, man tried to get bicycle back although it was not his back (no issue)
Bernhard -> does not have to be an accurate understanding of the law
​
2(1)(b) believes he would have others consent

R v Holden -> D took tyres from workplace, believing he was permitted because other employees had taken tyres with supervisor’s permission, so he thought he had the same righ

**2(1) (c) D believes the owner could not be found through reasonable steps **
​
S(2)(2): it May be dishonest despite the fact he is willing to pay for it. Leaving 30 pounds for a chair on the table.

Question 24

Intention to Permanently Deprive (name 3 ways this is done) not caselaw but ways

Answer 24

1.) Outright taking: D intends other to lose thing permanently.

2. Disposal: intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of others rights.

3. Borrowing or lending: Intention to use with loss of practical value

Question 25

Case for when Borrowing amounts to theft

Answer 25

**R v Lloyd** D who worked in a cinema took out movie tapes for hours at a time for them to be copied and sold. It was held that the was not guilty of theft as there was no loss of value to the films, they could still be screened. | s6 intention to permanently deprive

Question 26

Key cases on the Intent to permanently Deprive

Answer 26

🔹 1. R v Raphael & Another [2008] EWCA Crim 1014 Facts: The defendants took the victim’s car and demanded money for its return — essentially, they tried to ransom the car. Legal Issue: Did they have the intention to permanently deprive? Court’s Decision: YES — demanding money for the car's return shows they were treating it as their own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights (which is what Section 6(1) covers). It didn’t matter that they might have returned the car; the key is the ransom-like demand and control over the property. 🔹 2. R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299 Facts: Velumyl, a company manager, took money from a company safe intending to repay it later with his own money. Legal Issue: Was it theft if he planned to return the same value, but not the exact same notes/coins? Court’s Decision: YES — he intended to permanently deprive the company of those specific banknotes. The law recognizes money as a fungible good, but individual notes still count as specific property — and he had no right to swap them, even if he intended to return the same amount. 🔹 3. R v Mitchell [2008] EWCA Crim 850 Facts: Mitchell took a car to escape from police, then abandoned it undamaged on a road with hazard lights on, hoping it would be found. Legal Issue: Did he intend to permanently deprive the owner? Court’s Decision: NO — the court found he had no intention to keep or sell the car, and took steps to make it retrievable (hazards on, visible location). Simply using something temporarily isn’t enough unless you're treating it as your own (e.g., selling it, destroying it, or ransoming it).