From The Student Room

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Law > University Law Revision Notes > Revision:Theft

Here are some guidelines on how to answer an examination problem question about theft:

FIRST START BY SAYING:

D may have committed theft under s1 of the Theft Act 1968 (hereby TA 1968). The punishment is a maximum of 7 years imprisonment (s7 TA 1968).

Actus Reus:

The actus reus requires the act of appropriation of property and the circumstances that the property belongs to another.

Appropriation:

Section 3(1) defines appropriation as assuming the rights of an owner.

• Taking property away

• Destroying property

• Treating property as one’s own & selling it

The offense is committed at the moment of appropriation (Morris (1984) & Anderson v Burnside (1984). In the latter case, it was irrelevant that D had not left the shop.

CONSENT OF V: Consent is no defence in theft (Lawrence; Gomez) Thus an act can be appropriation notwithstanding that it was authorised or done with the consent of the owner.

Property:

s4 defines property as real and personal property.

BANK ACCOUNT: To cause a reduction in the size of V’s bank account is to appropriate intangible property belonging to V (namely V’s right to sue the bank for the amount by which the account is reduced; chose in action; R v Kohn (1979), Williams (Roy) (2000), Hilton (1997)).

CHEQUE: A cheque is 2 types of property capable of being stolen: a piece of paper and a chose in action (R v Duru).

Belonging to another:

Under s5, property is regarded as belonging to anyone having possession or control of it or having a proprietary right in it.

CONTROL OF PROPERTY: GARRAGE REPAIRS: In Turner, D had taken car to be repaired at a garage. When it was being repaired, he took it, intending not to pay for the repair. The court held that the car “belonged to” the repairer at the time D took it as the repairer had control of it. D was therefore guilty of theft.

Mens Rea:

Two elements: dishonesty and intention to deprive permanently.

Dishonesty:

GENERAL: SECTION 2 ESCAPE ROUTES Dishonesty is partially defined in s2(1) of TA 1968 which defines three states of mind which are as a matter of law, not dishonest.

Section 2(1)(a) provides that a person is not dishonest if he appropriates property in the belief that he has a legal right to deprive the owner of it.

Section 2(1)(b) provides that an appropriation is not to be regarded as dishonest if it is done in the belief that the owner would have consented had he known of the appropriation and the circumstances of it.

Section 2(1)(c) where true owner cannot be found.

In situations not covered by s2(1), the meaning of dishonesty is for the jury to decide (Feely)

Then, go on to...

GHOSH (1982) TEST

In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.

It is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he did.

Intention to permanently deprive:

Section 6(1) states that a person may be regarded as intending to permanently deprive if he intends to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights (DPP v Lavender 1994; R v Marshall 1998). In Lavender, the court referred to Chan Man-Sin v AG of Hong Hong as authority for the proposition that “to dispose of” included “dealing with”.

TOUCHING

Appropriation is established by the assumption of any of the rights of the owner (R v Morris: swapping price labels; approved in Gomez).

VALID GIFT

A done of a valid gift in civil law could be said to have appropriated the gift and, if dishonest, may be guilty of theft (Hinks).

If you have any questions about theft, feel free to contact Tufts