Term 2, lecture 4: theft
Definition:
Section 1. 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 and “thief” and “steal” shall be constructed
accordingly”
Appropriation:
The actus reus – this is appropriation of property belonging to another
(a) appropriation – assuming the rights of an owner. Doing something in relation to their property.
Assumption of the rights of owner?
* McPherson 1973 – a whisky into a bag, the right to posses the property, use it, consume it, destroy
it and sell it, give it away and move it.
- Issues having arisen with this concept.
Assumption of just one right of the owner or more of all the available rights?
- For example if D picked up the property (possessed it) does it also have t o be shown that he used,
consumed it or threw it away?
* Dip Kaur v Chief constable for Hampshire 1981
- D picked up shoes in a shop, knew was mislabelled, hoped she would be charged the lower price.
HELD: the appropriation occurred when she took the shoes to the cashier, not when she first picked
them up.
The current law is that assumption of one right is sufficient:
* Morris Anderton v Burnside 1984
- D switched labels of shop articles on the supermarket shelf to buy a cheaper price. Held: the right
to label the goods is a right of the owner. Ds assumed that right by switching the labels.
- Not necessary to show other rights were assumed
* Gomez 1993
Does “Assumption” require a physical act in relation to the property?
- An offer to sell on ebay without possessing the property (no physical act)
* Pitham and Hehl 1976 – D offered to sell Pitham the furniture of X (who was in prison) – the offer
was appropriation (So P could be a handler of stolen goods)
Transferring credit from a bank account (no physical act)
- D’s act of arranging a bank transfer from charity funds was an appropriation despite no physical act
but
- Compare with Briggs v R 2004 D received relatives into them transferring money from house sale,
into her bank account.
* Darroux 2018 – D care home manager made false overtime claims.
- When paid, no appropriation as a company employed by the Housing Association running the
home made the instruction to the bank, not D.
- D should have been charged with fraud.
