Theft Act 1968 (appropriation) Flashcards
What is the definition of theft
“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”
What are the sections under the theft act
s2 – Dishonestly – mens rea s3 – Appropriates – actus reus s4 – Property – actus reus s5 – Belonging to Another – actus reus s6 – With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it – mens rea
What is appropriation
It is “an assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation”
The rights of an owner including, selling, destroying, lending, hiring it out
Pitham and hehl 1977 under appropriation
Pitham and Hehl 1977
D sold furniture belonging to another
Held to be appropriation – the offer to sell was an assumption of the rights of an owner
It didn’t matter that the furniture hadn’t been removed from the house and the furniture hadn’t been sold yet
Morris 1983 under appropriation
Morris 1983
D switched price labels so that his product had a lower price. He put it into his basket but not yet gone through the checkout
Held that by swapping labels and putting it into basket this was assumption enough
Shows that picking an item off a shelf in a shop is appropriation
Corcoran v Anderton 1980
Corcoran v Anderton 1980
Forcible tugging of a handbag even if the owner didn’t let go could be an assumption of rights and therefore appropriate of the property
What is consent to appropriation
Doesn’t state that the appropriation has to be without the consent of the owner
Consent to appropriation - Lawrence 1971
Lawrence 1971
Italian student who spoken little English took a taxi.
It should have cost 50p. The student offered him £1 and when the D said it wasn’t enough the student opened his wallet and allowed D to help himself.
Lawrence that the money hadn’t been appropriated because of the consent.
This was reject and held to still be appropriation.
Consent without deception - appropriation (Hinks 2000)
Hinks 2000
D was a 38 year old women who had befriended a many with very low IQ. He was however mentally capable of understanding the concept of ownerships
Over 8 months the D accompanied the V to the bank where the V withdrew £60,000 and put it into D account. He also gave Hinks a TV set
Initially the court held that the money was a gift and the man understood his actions
Went to appeal and eventually H of L ruled that even though there was consent and there wasn’t any deception there was still appropriation
Later assumption of rights - appropriation
S3(1) – it is also appropriation when the D acquires the property without stealing it, but then later tries to keep or deal with the property as the owner
Eg. D hires a DVD legitimately but then later decides to not return it
Eg. D legitimately borrows a bicycle but then decides to keep it / sells it on to someone else (thereby dealing with it as if he owned it)
