Theft

* Theft is set out in S1 of the Theft Act 1968

'A person is guilty of theft if the person, dishonestly, appropriates, property, belonging to another, with the intention of permanently deprieving the other of it'

Appropriation:

Appropriation just means the assumption of rights, or just one right. These can include 'selling the property' 'destroying it' 'possessing it' 'consuming it'

Pitham & Helm = supports appropriation through selling the property.

Morris = shows there does not have to be an appropriation of all the rights

There can be an appropriation of rights even when there has been consent, seen in the case of (Lawrence)

Even innocent appropriation can become theft if there is any later an assumotion of the right of the owner, stated in Sec 3(1) - e.g. hiring a dvd

Property includes: money, real property, person propety and rights of actions.

* Human bodies cannot be stolen, because they dont belong to anyone (Kelly & Lindsay) but body fluids can (Welsh)

* Real Property is the legal term for land, Under S4(1) land can be stolen but this can only be done in three circumstances.... 1. Trustee/Personal representative takes land in breach of duties, 2. Someone not in possession of the land, severs anything forming part of the land, 3. Tenant takes a fixture from the land let to him. 

* Things in actions are enforcements by an ction in law, example a bank account, copyright or a cheque.

* Intangible property refers to other rights which have no physical prescence but can be stolen, there are some intangible property which have held not to be property. (Oxford V Moss = knowledge of the questions on an examination paper were held not to be property)

* Human Bodies, Electricity, Wild Plants, cannot be stolen, providing it is done not for commericial purposes.

Sec 5(1) stated Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it.

Sometimes the property stolen can actually belong to the defendant (Turner) - Turner used his spare keys to remove the car without paying, garage had possession and control of the car until bill settled

* If property is honestly abandoned then it cannot be theft, as it belongs to anyone.

* Rubbish deposited in council rubbish bins, or property in derelict conditions can still be appropriated if someone is in control of it. (Woodman)

* There are situations which make it clear that the defendant can be guilty of theft even though the property does not belong to another, these are * Property recieved under obligation *Property recieved by anothers mistake

* (Wain) - conviction of theft, and the conviction was upheld.

* When a person gets property by anothers mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration of the property, if there was a dishonest intention not to make restoration. Overpayments or payments recieved by mistake must be repaid stated in S5(4). 

* This was shown in the case of the A-G Reference (No 1 of 1983) - Defendant was overpaid by £74.77 and was under an obligation to make restoration which he didnt, this shows dishonest, intent, so all the elements of theft were present so the defendant was guilty

The act does not defie dishonest, but says what would not be dishonest:

S2 of the Theft Act 1968 gives three situations:

* Where someone appropriates property believing he has the right in law to deprieve the other (Robinson)

* Appropriation is done in the belief that the other would have consented if they knew

* If there is a genuine belief that the owner of the property cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

It does not prevent the act from being dishonest, if the defendant is willing to pay for the property. 

Dishonesty is also shown through the Ghosh Test which is a two stage test:

* Was the actions dishonest according to the ordinary standards of a reasonable honest person?

* Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?

Sec 6(1) states that intention to permanently deprieve means the person has the intention to treat the things as his own. Borrowing/Lending can amount to treating the object as your own but only if the borrowing or lending is for a long period of time. This meaning borrowing is not theft

DPP V Lavender = D took doors from a council property and used them to replace damaged doors in his girlfriends flat. Doors were still in possession of the council so the Defendant was treating property as his own

Conditional Intent to deprieve the owner of his property is enough, seen in the case of (Easom)

Raphael and Another - Defendants took victims car by force and then demanded payment for its return. It was held intention to treat things as your own, included situations where the defendant makes an offer to return his own property back to the owner