Introduction
Theft is defined under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. This statutory definition establishes five core elements that must be proven for a conviction: appropriation, property, belonging to another, dishonesty, and intention to permanently deprive. Understanding each element and how they interact is key for applying the law accurately. This article offers a detailed examination of these components, exploring relevant case law and legal principles important to the SQE1 FLK2 exam.
Appropriation
Appropriation refers to the assumption of any of the rights of an owner. Under Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968, a person appropriates property when they assume any of the rights of the owner, including taking, using, selling, or destroying the property. Appropriation can occur even with the owner's consent, as established in R v Gomez [1993] AC 442. Furthermore, appropriation can take place where the owner intends to transfer ownership, as seen in R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53.
Key Points
- Assumption of Rights: Any assumption of the rights of the owner constitutes appropriation.
- Owner's Consent: Appropriation may occur regardless of the owner's consent.
- Later Appropriation: Occurs when a person innocently comes by property but later assumes ownership rights dishonestly.
Case Law
- R v Morris [1984] AC 320: Altering price labels on goods was held to be an assumption of the rights of the owner.
- R v Gomez [1993] AC 442: Consent obtained by deception does not negate appropriation.
- R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53: Acceptance of a valid gift can be appropriation if done dishonestly.
Analysis
In R v Morris, the defendant switched price labels on goods in a supermarket to pay less for the items. The House of Lords held that appropriation involved any assumption of the rights of the owner, and it was unnecessary to assume all the rights.
In R v Gomez, the defendant, an assistant manager at an electrical goods shop, persuaded the manager to accept stolen cheques as payment. The court held that appropriation occurs even where the owner consents, provided the consent is obtained by deception.
In R v Hinks, it was determined that even the receipt of a gift can amount to appropriation if the defendant is acting dishonestly. Appropriation is thus a neutral act, and its moral character depends on the presence of dishonesty.
Property
Under Section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968, property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. The definition is broad, encompassing both tangible items and intangible rights.
Scope
- Tangible Property: Physical items such as goods and personal possessions.
- Real Property: Land and buildings, under certain circumstances.
- Things in Action: Rights enforceable by legal action, such as debts and contractual rights.
- Intangible Property: Non-physical assets like patents, trademarks, and shares.
Exclusions
- Confidential Information: Not considered property capable of being stolen (Oxford v Moss [1979]).
- Electricity: Not property under Section 4 but addressed under other statutory provisions.
- Wild Creatures: Not property unless tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity.
Case Law
- Oxford v Moss [1979] 68 Cr App R 183: Knowledge of exam questions was not property that could be stolen.
- R v Kelly [1998] 3 All ER 741: Body parts can be property if they have acquired value through skill or preservation.
Analysis
In Oxford v Moss, a student acquired a copy of an exam paper and was charged with theft of confidential information. The court held that information itself is not property under the Theft Act.
In R v Kelly, body parts removed from corpses were taken by an artist. The court determined that the body parts had become property through the application of skill (dissection and preservation), thus capable of being stolen.
Belonging to Another
Section 5 of the Theft Act 1968 states that property is regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having any proprietary right or interest. The term "belonging to another" is interpreted broadly, including situations where individuals have lesser interests than ownership.
Key Concepts
- Possession or Control: A person may have possession or control without ownership.
- Proprietary Rights or Interest: Includes ownership and other legal interests in the property.
- Obligations to Deal with Property: Property received under an obligation to be dealt with in a particular way remains property belonging to another.
Case Law
- R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901: A person can steal their own property if someone else has possession or control.
- R v Hall [1973] QB 126: Money given to a travel agent was not held under an obligation to be used in a particular way.
- Davidge v Bunnett [1984] Crim LR 297: Money given for a specific purpose must be used accordingly.
Analysis
In R v Turner (No 2), the defendant took his car from a garage without paying for repairs. The garage had possession and control, making the car property belonging to another for the purposes of theft.
In Davidge v Bunnett, the defendant used money from flatmates intended for a gas bill to purchase gifts. The defendant was under a legal obligation to apply the money for a specific purpose, so it remained property belonging to another.
Dishonesty
Dishonesty is a key element of theft, yet the Theft Act 1968 does not provide a comprehensive definition. Section 2 outlines specific situations where appropriation is not considered dishonest, but otherwise, dishonesty is assessed according to the standards of reasonable and honest people.
The Test for Dishonesty
The test established in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 is the current standard:
- Determine the Defendant’s Knowledge or Belief: Ascertain the actual state of the defendant's knowledge or belief as to the facts.
- Apply Objective Standards: Decide whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
This approach removes the subjective element regarding the defendant's awareness that their conduct is dishonest, which was part of the earlier Ghosh test.
Situations Where Dishonesty is Negated (Section 2(1))
- Legal Right: Belief in a legal right to deprive the other of the property.
- Consent: Belief that the owner would consent if aware of the appropriation.
- Reasonable Steps for Lost Property: Belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Case Law
- Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67: Established the objective test for dishonesty.
- R v Small [1988] 86 Cr App R 170: Considered the defendant's belief that a car was abandoned.
Analysis
In Ivey v Genting Casinos, the defendant used edge-sorting to win at a casino game. The Supreme Court held that dishonesty should be assessed objectively, focusing on whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people.
In R v Small, the defendant took a car he believed to be abandoned. The court considered whether his belief was genuinely held, which would negate dishonesty.
Intention to Permanently Deprive
Section 6 of the Theft Act 1968 stipulates that intention to permanently deprive includes treating the property as one's own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights. This concept extends to situations where the property is borrowed under conditions equivalent to an outright taking.
Key Aspects
- Treating Property as Own: Disposing of property or dealing with it in a manner that excludes the owner's rights.
- Borrowing Equivalent to Taking: Borrowing can amount to theft if the property's value or usefulness is lost.
- Conditional Intent: Intending to return equivalent property may still constitute an intention to permanently deprive.
Case Law
- R v Lloyd [1985] QB 829: Borrowing is not theft unless the "goodness, virtue, and practical value" are diminished.
- R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299: Intending to replace money with other currency notes is insufficient.
- DPP v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297: Unauthorized transfer of property can show intention to permanently deprive.
Analysis
In R v Lloyd, a projectionist took films to make copies and returned them undamaged. The court held there was no intention to permanently deprive since the films retained their value.
In R v Velumyl, the defendant took money from his employer's safe, intending to repay it. The court ruled that since the exact banknotes could not be returned, there was an intention to permanently deprive.
Comprehensive Case Study
Unauthorized Sale of a Vehicle
An individual, D, takes a vehicle belonging to E without permission and sells it to F, who is unaware of D's lack of authority.
Analysis:
- Appropriation: D assumed the rights of the owner by taking and selling the vehicle.
- Property: The vehicle is tangible property under Section 4(1).
- Belonging to Another: The vehicle belongs to E, who has ownership and possession.
- Dishonesty: Applying the Ivey test, D's conduct is dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
- Intention to Permanently Deprive: By selling the vehicle, D intended to exclude E's rights permanently.
This case illustrates how the elements of theft combine to establish the offence.
Conclusion
The complexity of theft under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 lies in the interplay between its constituent elements. The shift to an objective standard for dishonesty in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] profoundly affects how dishonesty is assessed, removing the subjective component and focusing on societal norms. The principles established in cases such as R v Gomez [1993] and R v Hinks [2000] highlight that appropriation can occur irrespective of the owner's consent or through seemingly valid transactions, provided there is dishonesty.
The broad definition of property, including both tangible and intangible assets, necessitates careful consideration of what can be subject to theft. Recognizing that property "belonging to another" encompasses those with possession or control emphasizes the need to understand legal ownership structures, as demonstrated in R v Turner (No 2) [1971]. The element of intention to permanently deprive requires analyzing the defendant's actions concerning the owner's rights, with cases like R v Velumyl [1989] underscoring the importance of the exact property's return.
For a successful prosecution, each element must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Legal practitioners must meticulously apply these principles, ensuring that the factual matrix aligns with the legal requirements. Proficiency in interpreting and applying these concepts is essential for analyzing offences and is critical for candidates preparing for the SQE1 FLK2 exam.
