Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Problems with the offence of Theft Act 1968 - Coggle Diagram
Problems with the offence of Theft Act 1968
What is 'property?'
S1 of the Theft Act says that for there to be theft, the defendant must have appropriated 'property'
Section 4(1) defines what property includes
money
real property - land and buildings - R v Gimbert [2018]
personal property - all moveable items such as books, jewellery, clothes and cars - R v Kelly and Lindsay [1998]
things in action - a right which can be enforced against another person by an action in law
other intangible property - other rights which have no physical presence but can be stolen under the Theft Act, for example electricity - Oxford v Moss [1979]
Things that aren't considered property
Wild plants - unless commercial use
Wild animals -unless tamed of in captivity
Contemporaneity rule
The Mens Rea and Actus Reus of an offence must happen at the same time for the offence to be valid.
Judges can sometimes get around this rule by saying that the Actus Reus is one continuing act, so that the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea do in fact coincide
Dishonesty
Section 1(2) states that ' it is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit'
The defendant is not dishonest if:
They have the right in law to deprive the person of it
They believe they would have the others consent
The owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps
Subjective test - what was in the defendants mind
Objective test - applies subjective test to defendants state of mind, whether by the standards of ordinary people they were dishonest
Who is the owner of property
What is appropriation
Appropriation is the act of taking something. The most obvious example would involve physical taking, such as a thief taking a wallet from victim's pocket without their knowledge.
Section 3(1) states: 'any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts 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 its owner'.
R v Vinall (2011) - two young men were cycling when they encountered the defendants who subjected them to verbal abuse and punched one from his bicycle as well as making other threats and they chased them for a short distance. The police stopped them about half a mile away. The appeal against conviction raised issues of appropriation, intention permanently to deprive and the time at which , and the purpose for which force was used in determining whether robbery was committed.
R V Morris - the defendant switched the price labels of two items on a supermarket shelf. He then put one of the items, which now had a lower price on it, into a basket provided by the store for shoppers. He took the item to the checkout and paid for it. The defendant's conviction for theft was upheld, as he had assumed a right by switching the price labels.
Consent to appropriation - the Theft Act 1968 does not state that the appropriation has to be without the consent of the owner, even though the previous law was that theft could only occur where owners did not consent to the taking.
Permanently Depriving
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other to lose it is to be regarded as an intention to permenantly deprive him of it if:
The Defendant intends to treat it as his own to dispose of, regardless of others rights
This includes outright disposal, keeping the property, or using it to prevent the owner from recovering it
Gifts