Theft

Intro

S1 Theft Act 1968
D dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive

1 of 6

D appropriates property belonging to another
Appropriates - s3 Theft Act - any assumption by a person of the rights of the owner amounts to an appropriation- could be selling, keeping, damaging or destroying property
If someone unknowingly buys stolen goods, this is not appropriation
R v Morris - any assumption of the rights is appropriation
R v Gomez & Lawrence- consent is no defence
R v Hinks - a gift can be appropriation as he was conned
Takes place at the time of the assumption of rights ie in Morris when the labels were swapped

2 of 6

s4 - property = money and all other property, real or personal including things in action and intangible property
Welsh - blood and urine samples can be property
Kelly and Lindsey- body parts preserved for scientific research can be property
R v Smith - illegal drugs are property
land is not property
No offence is committed when a person picks wild flowers etc as long as it is not for commercial purposes
No theft if a person captures a wild animal that is not in captivity
Oxford v Moss- information cant be stolen
R v Edwards and Stacey - dead pigs were the property of the farmer
Chan - cheques amount to things in action

3 of 6

Property is regarded as belonging to any person that has possession or control over it
Or any proprietary right
It can therefore belong to more than one person at a time and a person can be guilty of stealing property belonging to himself
Ricketts v Basildon - the goods left outside the charity shop belonged to the charity shop as they had not been abandoned
R v Wain - where a person is expected to deal with the property in a certain way
R v Gilks - where D has recieved property by mistake the property is regarded as belonging to the person deserving restoration

4 of 6

3 examples where a D is not dishonest
Where he appropriates property with an honest belief that he has the right to it as in Holden
If he believes the proprietor would have given consent had he been present
If he believes that the true owner of the property could not be found using reasonable steps
If none of these - the GHOSH Test
1. Was the D dishonest in the eyes of normal reasonable and honest people
2. Did D realise he was dishonest by those standards
R v Jouman - conned 88, 50 and 10 thousand from elderly patient- d could not have believed she was entitled to the money

5 of 6

Intends to treat the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the owners rights
Velumyl - wouldnt be giving back the exact same notes so it was IPD
Lloyd - projectionist was only taking films for 2 hours and returning them in the same condition so no IPD
R v Vinall - abandoning property can be IPD as it is disposal of property regardless of the owners rights
Easom - conditional appropriation doesnt count

6 of 6