Slides in this set

Slide 1

Preview of page 1

S1 of the 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'
Actus Reus: Mens Rea:
-Appropriate (s3) -Dishonesty (s2)
-Property (s4) -Intent to permanently
-Belonging to Another deprive s6)
(s5)…read more

Slide 2

Preview of page 2

`Any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner
amounts to an appropriation and this includes, where he has
come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it,
any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing
with the owner'
Pitham and Hehl 1977: D sold furniture belonging to
another. The offer to sell was an assumption of the rights of
the owner so this amounted to appropriation
Morris 1983: D switched the price labels of 2 items on a
shelf for a lower price. His conviction was upheld as Lord
Roskill stated it is enough for the D to have assumed any
rights of the owner…read more

Slide 3

Preview of page 3

Consent to the Appropriation
Lawrence 1971: An Italian student who knew little
English had given permission to the taxi driver to take £6
from his wallet although the fare only cost 52p. Despite
there being consent, it wasn't genuine and therefore he was
found guilty
This decision was followed in Gomez 1993 where the D
persuaded the manager to sell electrical goods worth
£17,000 by two cheques which were stolen and had no
value. His conviction was quashed relying on the judgment
in Morris 1983 that there had to be "adverse interference"
for there to be appropriation.…read more

Slide 4

Preview of page 4

Consent to the Appropriation
Hinks 2000- D was a 38yr old woman who had
befriended a man with low IQ and was naive. He was
mentally capable of understanding the concept of
ownership and making a valid gift. Over eight months, D
accompanied the man to withdraw the money. He took out
£60,000 (and a TV set)and deposited into D's account. D
was convicted of theft as the ordinary person would regard
it as dishonest to accept a gift from him. On appeal, it was
argued that if the gift was valid, the acceptance of it could
not be theft.…read more

Slide 5

Preview of page 5

"Property includes money and all other property real or
personal including things in action and other intangible
In Kelly and Lindsay 1998, it was held that dead bodies and
body parts can be personal property for the purposes of
REAL PROPERTY: legal term for land and buildings. Land
can only be stolen in 3 circumstances:
1. A trustee takes land in breach of his duties as a trustee
2. Someone not in possession of the land severs anything
3. A tenant takes a fixture or structure from the land let to
him…read more

Slide 6

Preview of page 6

THINGS IN ACTION- a right which can be enforced
against another person by an action in law
other rights which have no physical presence but can
be stolen
AG for Hong Kong v Chan Nai-Keung 1987- an
expert quota for textiles was intangible property
which could be stolen
However there are some types of intangible property
which can not be stolen. In Oxford v Moss 1979,
knowledge of the questions on an examination paper
was held not to be property…read more

Slide 7

Preview of page 7
Preview of page 7

Slide 8

Preview of page 8
Preview of page 8

Slide 9

Preview of page 9
Preview of page 9

Slide 10

Preview of page 10
Preview of page 10


Remy Somerston


really useful

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »