Theft

Theft is defined in section1 of the Theft Act 1968 which states that a person is only guilty of theft if his dishonesty appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
There are five sections of the act, all of which give some meaning into the terminology which are used in the definition, those five are:

Section2-Dishonesty

Section3-Appropriation

Section4-Property

Section5-Belonging to another

Section6-With the intention to permanently depriving another of it.

 Actus Reus of Theft

Appropriation

Appropriation means when taking another property, destroying it, using it in another way, selling it, offering to sell it or refusing to return the item or object back to its legal owner.

 Section3 of the Theft Act 1968 states that:

1)      Any person who takes the rights of an owner which amounts an appropriation (taking the item innocently or not)

2)      Where someone takes an interest into a property or takes the right of the property is transferred for value to a person who acts in good faith, no later assumption by him of the right which he believed to be acquired shall by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title amount to the theft of a property.

 Cases which support this are:

 R v Laurence

An Italian tourist visited London, whilst there he went up to a taxi driver and showed him an address; the defendant said it would be expensive however it was cheap. The Victim gave the defendant £1 keeping his wallet open; the defendant took an extra £6 from the wallet without an objection from the victim

The defendant was later charged with the theft of the £6 however his conviction was upheld by the House of Lords.

 R V Morris (1983)

The defendant took the goods from the shelves off a supermarket and replaces the price tags on the items with a lower price tag, at the checkout he was asked to pay the prices he had put on the items he was later arrested and subsequently convicted of theft.

Dismissing the defendants appeal the House of Lords said it was enough to prove that the defendant had assumed any of the rights of the owner.

 R V Stalham (1993)

The defendant was awarded a salary increase of £4000 per year but due to an error the whole sum was transferred to his bank account instead of instalments.

The defendant was told of the error and that the excess would be taken back however he allowed for his brother to take the money and spend it.

The defendant was convicted of theft on the basis of his wrongful reaction of property that was received in an error.

 R V Hinks(2000)

A women was a carer of an elderly man who had low intelligence, she persuaded the man to gift he a sum of £60,000

The jury found as a fact that the defendant had acted dishonestly and was convicted of theft.

The House of Lords affirmed the conviction as said there can be an appropriation even where the victim gives the money voluntarily to the thief.

 R v Briggs(2004)

The defendant appealed successfully against her conviction for theft. Her aunt and uncle wished to buy a smaller house. The Defendant bought the house but had registered the house under her name and her fathers name rather than the victims.

Allowing the defendants appeal Siblber Js said there was no appropriation where the defendant included the owner by fraud to part with the property.

 Property

Section4 gives a more comprehensive definition to property meaning that anything can be stole it states that:

Property includes money and all other property weather I be real or personal, or things in action and other intangible property.

Property could be anything including:

•  Money
• Real property such as land, a tenant fixture
• Things in action such as debts
• Other intangible things such as gas

This excludes land or things that form part of a land such as a driveway. Expectations include:

1. When the defendant is in a certain positions of trust and appropriates the land or anything that forms part of it, dealing with it in breach of the confidence in him or her
2. When the defendant is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land.
3. When the defendant is in possession of land under a tenancy appropriates the whole or even part of the land or structure, which is to be used with the land such as if you live in a rented premises and when you leave to remove anything you have installed or you have bought and replace it with what was originally there in the first place.

Under section4 no offence is committed if a person if they pick wild flowers, fruits as this is not done for commercial purpose.

It also states that a person will not commit theft if they capture a wild animal which has been tamed or reduced to captivity, as this does not fall behind the offence of theft.

 Cases which support this are:

 R V Edwards and Stacey (1877)

Three pigs were bitten by a mad dog, and shot and buried by the farmer. that night two defendnats dug them up and sold them to a butcher. they were convicted of larceny but their appeals were dismissed , as the pigs hadnt been abanoned and were still the owners property even if they were of no value to him.

Welsh (1974)

The defendant who was accused of driving poured his own urine specimen down a sink when the police officer was out of the room. The defendnat was guilty of perversion of the Court of Justice as blood and urine samples are still classed as property.

Even though the definition of property has been expanded and redefined over the years there are several situations where the court has had to make a decision of weather there has been theft as a result of the nature of the property involved

Cases which support this are:

Oxford V Moss (1978)

The defendant who was a student of engineering took an exam paper with the intention of return it once having gained the knowledge to enable him to cheat on the exam.
He was found guilty of theft.

 Chan man- sin V Attorney General (1988)

The defendant who was a and accountant for H and M with drew $4.8 million form both H and M’s account by using forged cheques, both accounts went overdrawn but within agreed limits.
The defendant argued that the bank had no right to honar forged cheques and that the transaction should have been avoided.
He was found guilty of theft.

 R V Kelly and Lindsey (1999)

The defendant who was an artist was given permission to draw anatomical specimen held by the Royal College of Surgeons.  The specimens were of body parts used for training purposes. The defendant met Lindsey who was a technician working for the college and asked her to remove different body parts over a period of many months this included 3 heads, 6 arms, 10 legs, part of a brain and three torsos.
Kelly later made casts of the body parts and exhibited them in an art gallery. Both Kelly and Lindsey were both convicted of theft however their appeal was dismissed and conviction was upheld.

 Belonging to another

Section5 of the Theft act states that a property is regarded as belonging to any person when they are in possession or in control of it.

Therefore it can belong it more than one person at a time, although a person can be found guilty of stealing property that they own as belonging to another person means less than ownership and includes the possession or control of the item.

Cases include:

Williams V Phillips (1957)

Two defendants who worked as bin men were convicted of stealing goods from dustbins collected in the course of their duties and selling the goods to dealer’s ad sharing the profits that were made. Both were found guilty of theft as the item still belonged to the household until the items are taken away to the tip. And even the council then own the rights to that item.

 R v Turner (no2 1971)

The defendant took his care to be serviced at a service station, when he came to pick it back up the next day he saw that the car had been left outside with the key in. he took the care without paying. The defendant was liable or theft of his own car since the car was regarded of belonging to the service station as they were on possession and control of the car.
Where a person receives property from another person and is expected to use the item in the correct manner than the property s than seen as belonging to another.
When a person has obtained the property by mistake they are under an obligation to restore the property, than the person is regarded as belonging to the person who is entitled to restoration.

 Cases which support this are:

 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.

DPP V Huskinson(1988)
The defendant who was a tenant of a bed sit fell into arrears of rent and applied for housing benefit. He only gave half of the benefit to his landlord. He was not guilty.

 R V Wain

The defendant helped raise and collect money for the telethon trust charity. He put the charity into his personal account with the trust permission but used the money for his own purposes. He was found guilty of theft.

 R V Webster

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, the medal had been sent by mistake and therefore were still property of the secretary of the state.

Section5 looks over situation where a person receives property under the obligation to deal with or the proceedings in a particular way. This is seen as belonging to another if he does anything unauthorised with it.

Case such as:

Davidge V Bennett (1984)

The defendant received cheques from her flatmates which were to pay for the gas bill but instead of paying the bills the defendant spent the money of Christmas gifts and left the flat without paying the gas bill.
They were found guilty of theft.

Mens Rea of Theft
Mens Rea has two elements

Dishonesty

Intention to permanently deprive

 Both elements are to be proved for the offence to be committed. It is the Mens Rea of the offence which distinguishes the crime of theft.

 Dishonesty

The theft act section2 states that:

• If he appropriates the property in the believe that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it on behalf of himself of a third person
• If he appropriates a property in the belief that he would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it

• If he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs to cannot be discovered by the taking reasonable steps.

Where these exceptions do not apply the courts have developed a test t establish whether d was acting dishonestly or not.

R V Feely (1973)

D was a manager in a betting shop. He borrowed £30 from the till and the maintained he was going to replace it within a few days. His conviction of theft was quashed as he had been dishonest.  As it is down to the jury to decided.

 R v Gosh (1982)

 D, a surgeon acting as a locum at a hospital represented that he was owed for operations that he had carried out. Someone else had carried out the operations under the NHS. 

 It was held that D was acting dishonestly, the jury had to consider whether according to the standards of the ordinary reasonable person what was done was dishonest using the objective test.The jury must then consider whether D himself must have realised that what he was doing was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable person, using the subjective test.     

1) Was the d dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people? Objective

If yes the second question is

3)      Did d realise that he or she has been dishonest by those standards?

R v Holden (1991)

D took tyres from his former employer in the belief that he had permission to remove the tyres, or believed it would have been granted had he sought it.

 It was held that the reasonableness of a defendant's belief was irrelevant to the question of dishonesty.

 The question was whether D had, or might have had, the necessary honest belief, reasonably or not. The defendant was found not guilty of theft.    

 Lawrence v commissioner of police (1971)
The judge of this case said he wasn't inclined to read section1 (1) as if the words without the owners consent were included by omitting those words. parliament had relieved the prosecution of the burden of showing the absence of consent. If the defendant had genially believed the victim had knowingly agreed to pay for more his appropriation wouldn't have been dishonest.

Intention to permanently deprive

The finale element of Men's Rea of theft is the intention t permanently deprives the rightful owner of the property that has been taken. This has to be specific as recklessness is not enough.

Theft act secion6 states that:

Section6 (1)-Provides that person will be taken as permanently depriving the other of the property if he intends to treat the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the real owners rights and states that this may occur even in cases where the offence is claiming that he has only borrowed the goods

Section6 (2)- States that a person may be regarded as treating the property of another as their own in cases were he ports with the possession of it under a condition as to its returned which he may be able to perform such as where he has pawned the good in question knowing it would be possible to buy them back.

This Means that there are two aspects to IPD

1)      disposing of the property regardless of the owners rights

2)      A borrowing or lending making it equivalent to outright taking or disposal.

Cases which support this are the cases of:

Easom (1971)

D went to a cinema and picked up a women's handbag and sorted through the contents. He left the handbag with its contents intact in front of the seat which he had vacated. The handbag had been attached by cotton to a police sergeant's wrist.

It was held that  if D merely had it in mind to deprive the owner of such of his property as, proved worth taking but actually took nothing, he would not have stolen it. Therefore he had not been found guilty of theft since he had not taken anything from the bag or the bag itself.

R v warner (1970)

D took a box of tools and hid them in his shop in a box and covered them with scarves.  He did so because of an on going dispute between the workers of two neighbouring shops.  He intended to return them an hour later. Due to not depriving the owner of the tools he was found not guilty of theft

R v Lloyd (1985)

D a projectionist at a cinema secretly borrowed films and lent them to friends who made illegal copies of them. The films were returned after a few hours undamaged to the cinema in time for the performance. Due to not keeping the films and returning them back to the cinema in time for the performance D was not found guilty of theft.

R v velumy (1989)

D a company manager borrowed £1050 from safe at work without authority and contrary to company rules and leant it to a friend.  He intended to return the money on the following Monday. He was found guilty of theft as he had been dishonest.

R v Marshall (1998)

DDD obtained London Underground tickets from passengers leaving the system and sold them to other potential customers.
it was held that On issuing an Underground ticket a contract was created between London Underground and the purchaser, under which both parties had rights and obligations which could be enforced.

R v lavender (1994)

The defendant took doors from a council house to replace damaged doors in his girlfriends house even though the council owned the house. since he had used the doors as the owner and used the doors as he seen fit he was found guilty of theft. 

Dpp v john and others (2002)

DD who were 14 robbed another boy.  They snatched his headphones and broke them in half, and then returned them to the boy. The boys were found guilty of theft as they had deprived the 14 year old of the headphones as they used them inappropriately. 

R v Michael (2008)

Removal from public places

The act, take it an offence to unlawfully to remove from a building open the viewing the whole or part of or the article displayed. This does not include sales displays and id there to help convict a person who takes a portrait from an art gallery. No intention to permanently deprive is required.