THEFT:
o The Larcency Act 1916 S1(1): A person steals who, without the consent of the
owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes
and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time
of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof
o Theft Act 1968 s1(1): A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving
the other of it…
To simplify this, the 4 elements of theft are dishonesty,
appropriation, property belonging to another and the intention of
permanent deprivation.
Note that there is no need to permanently deprive someone in theft,
you just need the intention to permanently deprive someone.
APPROPRIATION is the key conduct element. Theft Act s3(1): Any
assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to
appropriation. S2(1)(a) says that D is not to be found dishonest if they
believed that they in law had the right to deprive the other of the
property. S.6: “D...is to be regarded as having the intention to deprive
the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose
of regardless of the other’s rights...
S.5: “Property is to be regarded as belonging to any person having
possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or
interest...”
Crimes Act 1961 says ‘dishonesty means done or omitted without a
belief that there was express or implied consent to, or authority for,
the act or omission from a person entitled to give such consent or
authority’.
Morris (a shopkeeper who switched the labels of products with no
permission from his employer). 5(a) says changing labels on goods is
appropriation and 5(b) says removing goods from the shelf is not
assumption of the rights of an owner because such an act is expressly
or impliedly authorised since this does not mean you usurp the
owner’s rights. Lawrence (tourist in a taxi gets ripped off by driver
who represented a false number to the tourist). Gomez (shop
assistant manager approached by X to secure agreement with them to
accept two stolen cheques in exchange for goods. D deceived their
manager by authorising the sale; D assisted X in their appropriation
from the shop and depriving it). Gallasso (D was a nurse in charge of
mentally ill patients. D paid cheques intended for V’s bank account,
but the allegation was D was going to steal it later. The CA held no
offence even if D acted dishonestly because after Gomez, even
authorised acts can be appropriation. But even so there must be an
ASSUMPTION OF V’S RIGHTS under s3(1) to which D did not assume
V’s rights). Hinks (D befriended V, who had limited intelligence. D took
o The Larcency Act 1916 S1(1): A person steals who, without the consent of the
owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes
and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time
of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof
o Theft Act 1968 s1(1): A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving
the other of it…
To simplify this, the 4 elements of theft are dishonesty,
appropriation, property belonging to another and the intention of
permanent deprivation.
Note that there is no need to permanently deprive someone in theft,
you just need the intention to permanently deprive someone.
APPROPRIATION is the key conduct element. Theft Act s3(1): Any
assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to
appropriation. S2(1)(a) says that D is not to be found dishonest if they
believed that they in law had the right to deprive the other of the
property. S.6: “D...is to be regarded as having the intention to deprive
the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose
of regardless of the other’s rights...
S.5: “Property is to be regarded as belonging to any person having
possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or
interest...”
Crimes Act 1961 says ‘dishonesty means done or omitted without a
belief that there was express or implied consent to, or authority for,
the act or omission from a person entitled to give such consent or
authority’.
Morris (a shopkeeper who switched the labels of products with no
permission from his employer). 5(a) says changing labels on goods is
appropriation and 5(b) says removing goods from the shelf is not
assumption of the rights of an owner because such an act is expressly
or impliedly authorised since this does not mean you usurp the
owner’s rights. Lawrence (tourist in a taxi gets ripped off by driver
who represented a false number to the tourist). Gomez (shop
assistant manager approached by X to secure agreement with them to
accept two stolen cheques in exchange for goods. D deceived their
manager by authorising the sale; D assisted X in their appropriation
from the shop and depriving it). Gallasso (D was a nurse in charge of
mentally ill patients. D paid cheques intended for V’s bank account,
but the allegation was D was going to steal it later. The CA held no
offence even if D acted dishonestly because after Gomez, even
authorised acts can be appropriation. But even so there must be an
ASSUMPTION OF V’S RIGHTS under s3(1) to which D did not assume
V’s rights). Hinks (D befriended V, who had limited intelligence. D took
