THEFT (UNIT 4)

Found under s1 Theft Act 1968

Definition - 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 - appropriating property belonging to another 

Appropriation -  Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation

R v Morris - assumption of any of the rights is sufficient to amount to appropriation. 

Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - D can appropriate an item even if consent has been given by the owner. 

R v Hinks - If D dishonestly aquires ownership of property belonging to another, even by way of valid gift, D will have appropriated and stolen it. 

Property - money, and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

Cannot be stolen:

• wild flowers
• foliage
• fruit
• wild creatures
• Oxford v Moss - intangible property in the form of knowledge. 

Belonging to another - person having possession or control of it, or having any proprietary right or interest.

R v Turner - guilty of stealing own property as the garage was in possession of the car until the bill was paid. 

Mens rea - dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive the other of something.

Dishonesty - R v Ghosh 2 stage test

• would the reasonable and honest person consider D's actions to be dishonest?
• If yes, did D realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?

Not dishonest - if he apppropriates the property in the belief he has the right in law to deprive the other of it; if he has the other's consent if they knew of the circumstances; or if D believes that the property is lost and the owner cannot be traced using reasonable steps. 

Intention to permanently deprive - no requirement that D gets away with property before it beomes stolen; only has to appropriate the property with the intention to permanently deprive. Intends to treat thing as their own. 

R v Velumyl - Had the intention because the bank notes he would use to replace the stolen money were not the original ones.

R v Lloyd - If goodness, virtue and practicality have gone from the article, D had the intention to permanently deprive.