Theft Flashcards
What is the legal definition of theft under S1(1) of the Theft Act 1968?
A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
What are the three parts of the actus reus (guilty act) for theft?
- Appropriation (S3(1))
- Property (S4(1))
- Belonging to another (S5(1))
What are the two parts of the mens rea (guilty mind) for theft?
- Dishonesty (S2)
- Intention to permanently deprive (S6)
What is appropriation under S3(1) of the Theft Act 1968?
Appropriation is the assumption of the rights of an owner. This includes taking, selling, or using property as if you were the owner.
What case law supports the concept of appropriation?
R v Morris (1983) – It was ruled that only assuming one right of the owner is enough to be appropriation.
What does S4(1) of the Theft Act say about property?
Almost anything can be stolen, including money, personal property, real property, things in action, and intangible property.
What case law clarifies the meaning of property in theft?
R v Marshall (1998) – The court stated that the value of an item is taken into account when considering theft.
What does S5(1) of the Theft Act 1968 say about ‘belonging to another’?
Property belongs to another if someone has possession, control, or a proprietary interest.
What does S6 of the Theft Act say about the intention to permanently deprive?
The defendant must intend never to return the property or return it in a way that removes its essential value.
What case law supports the concept of the intention to permanently deprive?
R v Velumyl (1989) – The defendant took money from his employer, intending to return an equal amount later. However, because he would not return the exact same notes, it was considered theft.
What does S2 of the Theft Act 1968 say about dishonesty?
There is no statutory definition of dishonesty. Instead, the courts use the Ghosh Test.
What is the Ghosh Test for dishonesty?
- Would the defendant’s behaviour be considered dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people?
- Did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would see their actions as dishonest?
Which case overruled the Ghosh Test?
R v Barton and Booth (2020) – This case replaced the Ghosh test with a more objective test for dishonesty.
Is it relevant whether the defendant intends to profit from the theft?
No, it does not matter if the defendant intends to make a profit or simply destroy the property. Theft still applies.
