Theft

Question 1

What is theft as stated in the theft act 1968

Answer 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’.

Question 2

What is the actus reus for theft?

Answer 2

3 elements in the actus reus: appropriates, property, belonging to another.

Question 3

What is the mens rea for theft?

Answer 3

• 2 elements in the mens rea: dishonestly, with the intention of permanently
  depriving the other of it.

Question 4

What two other key factors are theft

Answer 4

The Theft Act 1968 also states that the offence doesn’t have to amount to the physical stealing of the property but can also include coming into the possession of it and the using of it either innocently or not.
* Attempting to sell somebody else’s property is also theft. Read R v Pitham and Hehl (1977) page 41.
* Any assumption of the rights of the owner, including destroying property is the

Question 5

Case

Question 6

Case

Question 7

Case

Question 8

What does theft act say about consent

Answer 8

• The Theft Act 1968 does not state that appropriation has to be without the consent of the owner. Look at the case of Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police (1972) for an example of this.
• In R v Gomez (1993), theft was also interpreted as the act of using cheques, known to be stolen to pay for goods.
• In R v Hinks (2000), the defendant had technically obtained consent to appropriate property. In case lady took huge cash payments and cheques claiming them to be gifts
• In R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1994), the Court of Appeal quashed their convictions because the appropriation had happened outside of the country.
• Acquiring property such as hiring it and then deciding to sell it later also comes under the Theft Act.

Question 9

What does the theft at say about property?

Answer 9

• Property has a very wide-ranging definition and can include just about anything that can be owned both tangible and intangible. R v Kelly and Lindsay (1998).
• The term ‘real property’ is used for land and buildings.

Question 10

What are the three cisumstances stated for property

Answer 10

S4(1) and s 4(2) state that this can only be done in 3 circumstances:
- A trustee or personal representative taking land in breach of his duties.
- Someone not in possession of the land severing anything forming part of the land from the land.
- A tenant taking a fixture or structure from the land let to him.

Question 11

What’s a “thing in action”

Answer 11

• A ‘thing in action’ can include a bank account or a cheque.

Question 12

More definitions of property

Answer 12

• Other intangible property can include things like patents. However in Oxford v Moss (1979), it was judged that knowledge of questions before an exam was not property.
• In ss 4(3) and 4(4), things like plants and fungi growing wild, along with wild animals are considered things that cannot be stolen.

Question 13

‘Belonging to another’

Answer 13

This is very wide-ranging as it is not always necessary to prove who the legal owner of property is, rather the person who is in control of it at that time.
* This could include somebody who has hired a car or even somebody who had originally stolen the property from somebody else!
Possession or control:
* In R v Turner (No.2) (1971), the defendant was convicted of stealing his own car.
* In R v Woodman (1974), the defendant was convicted of theft even though the owner was unaware that the property was even there in the first place.
* Theft of rubbish and items left on a doorstep are dealt with in R (on the application of Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates Court (2010).

Question 14

Proprietary interest:

Answer 14

When a person owns and is in possession and control of property, they can still be guilty of theft if somebody else has an interest in it. R v Webster (2006).
A army officer who was eligible for a service medal was mistakenly sent 2 identical medals instead of one. He gavethe second medal to the defendant who sold it via the internet. The defendant was convicted of theft and his conviction was upheld on appeal,
* S 5 outlines other situations where the defendant acts dishonestly causing a loss to another – trust property where the trustee steals it, property received under an obligation or property received by another’s mistake

Question 15

Property received under obligation:

Answer 15

• S 5(3) deals with situations where property is received under an obligation to deal with it in a particular way. If the obligation is unclear, this cannot be theft even if say, money paid as a deposit into a business account is expected to be used for one thing, but ends up being used for something else – R v Hall (1972).
• In R v Klineberg and Marsden (1999), there WAS a very clear understanding that the money was to be used in a particular way.
• There may also be a legal obligation in less formal situations – Davidge v Bunnett (1984).

Question 16

Property received by mistake:

Answer 16

Property received by mistake:
* S 5(4) deals with these obligations - Attorney-General’s Reference (No.1 of 1983) (1985). There is a legal obligation to return the property here. There was a different outcome in R v Gilks (1972). The defendant placed a bet on a horse names fighting Scott, the race however the race was won by a horse named fighting taffy. The manager of the betting shop believed that the defendant had won the race and paid out a total of £106.63, the defendant knew about the manager’s mistake but did not correct him he took the money instead. He was convicted of theft.

Question 17

Dishonesty

Answer 17

• S 1(2) states that the motive of the defendant in appropriating the property is irrelevant. They don’t have to gain anything by it.

Question 18

Behaviour which is not dishonest:

Answer 18

Behaviour is NOT regarded as dishonest if –
- S 2 (1)(a) – they have the right to deprive somebody of it in law on behalf of
somebody else. For instance, bailiffs.
- S 2(1)(b) – they have the other’s consent.
- S 2(1)(c) – the owner of the property cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
* All of the above are based on D’s belief, correct, reasonable or otherwise.
* If the jury decides that D had a genuine belief, however unreasonable, they must
be found not guilty – R v Holden (1991), R v Robinson (1977), R v Small (1987

Question 19

Willing to pay

Answer 19

• S 2(2) states that it is also theft if property is taken regardless of the owner’s wishes, even if the intention is to pay later.

Question 20

The Ghosh test and what has changed

Answer 20

• R v Ghosh (1982) led to a two question test.
• First part is objective: was what was done dishonest according to the
  standards of reasonable and honest people?
• Second part is subjective: did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?
• In a 2017 civil case, Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd, the Supreme Court effectively did away with the second part of the Ghosh test. Although only stated in the obiter, it will probably set a precedent and have an impact on criminal cases.
• In essence, Lord Hughes stated that there is no requirement for the defendant to appreciate that his behaviour was dishonest if the jury has already ascertained in the objective test that it is.

Question 21

How many sections are there in the theft act

Answer 21

6

Question 22

What is section 1 of the theft act

Answer 22

Section one is the definition and act itself that states: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

Question 23

What is section 2 of the theft act and what does it state

Answer 23

Section 2 of the theft act is centred around dishonesty and states: that the act is not dishonest if d believes:
He has a right in the law
He would have the others consent
The owner cannot be discovered
Ghosh test can be used to prove dishonesty
Two part test 1982:
Is it dishonest by ordinary standards?
If so did d know it was dishonest by those standards

Question 24

What does section three of the theft act state

Answer 24

S3 appropriation any assumptions of the rights of the owner-Gomez

Question 25

What does section 4 state

Answer 25

Section 4 discusses property
Includes all type of property including real and personal
And things in action and other intangible property.
Land cannot be stole except by trustee or tenant or by serving property from land
Wild animals cannot be stolen unless tamed or in captivity
Wild fruit etc cannot be stolen unless for commercial purposes

Question 26

what does s5 of the theft act state

Answer 26

Property belonging to another is regarded as anyone who has control over the property or is in possession of it at the time and who has proprietary rights
Property belongs to another if it is received under an obligation for the other to retain

Question 27

What does s6 of the theft act state

Answer 27

Intention to permanently deprive Lloyd

Question 28

Borrowing or lending

Answer 28

• S 6, which deals with the intention to permanently deprive is unspecific about this.
• S 6 states that borrowing is not theft unless it’s for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
• Read R v Lloyd (1985).
• Conditional intent - In R v Easom (1971), D picked up a handbag, rummaged through it and then returned it having taken nothing. There was no evidence of theft as there was no evidence D had intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag or its contents.