Theft

Theft
S. 1 of Theft Act 1968 defined theft as the "dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it".
Actus reus

Dishonest (S. 2) appropriation (S.3) of property (S.4) belonging to another (S. 5)

S. 3 Appropriation

- Any assumption by a  person of any rights (R v Morris)  of an owner like selling (R v Pitham and Hehl) or destroying the property.

R v Hinks,  R v Gomez and R v Lawrence held that an appropriation can take place even if there is a consent from the owner if there is dishonesty.

S. 4 Property

There are 5 types and these are;

- Money
These includes coins and banknotes

- Real property

These includes land.  S. 4(2) denotes 3 ways land can be stolen;
1. A trustee of the land takes it in breach of his/her duties as a trustee.
2. Someone not is possession of the property severs anything forming part of he land.
3. A tenant takes a structure from the land like subletting it.

- Personal property
A person's things,  where trivial or sentimental.  R v Kelly and Linsday held that a dead body can be stolen if it is being modified.

- Things in action
This basically offers to the rights in order to use or get something like a travel ticket,  trademarks,  shares,  etc.  R v Marshall held that a ticket is owned by the organisation producing them and only gives a person a right to use a particular service.

- Intangible property
Things with no physical presence like export quotas (AG of HK v Chan Nai-Keung),  Knowledge of content (Oxford v Moss held such cannot be stolen),  and patents.

* Although wild animals or plants are not property,  selling them or obtaining them illegally will make them property.

S. 5
 -  A property belongs to a person who has obtained it legally.
- R v Turner held a person can be held stealing a property he legally owns.
- R v Woodman and Ricketts v Basildon held that someone will always have the possession of a property so long as he/she controls it.
- R v Hall and R v Klineberg and Marsden held that a person can be guilty of theft by using a property obtained from a obligation to cause a loss to another or obtain a gain from it.
Exceptions
- R v Wain held that a person cannot be liable for theft so long as he/she fulfills the obligation in the same terms.
- Davidge v Burnett held that there is a obligation is situations where there is a intention to create legal relations under contract law.
- AG Reference 1983 held that any property given to a person by mistake must be returned so long as there is a obligation like a contract. Although this depends whether dishonesty is involve as in Moyness v Cooper.

Mens rea
Dishonest (S. 2)... with intention to permanently deprive the other of it (S. 6)

S. 2 Dishonesty

There are three exceptions

- If the person believes he or she has in law the rim to deprive the other of the property as in R v Robinson.

-if the person believes he or she would have the other person's consent if the other person knew of the appropriation.

- If the person believes the owner of the property cannot be found by taking reasonable steps.

R v Ghost test application

(1) D's action will be considered as dishonest by a reasonable and honest person and (2) D knows what he/she is doing will be held as dishonest according to the standards of a reasonable and honest person.

Section 6 Intention to permanently deprive

- R v Velumyl held that a D will be liable for theft even if he/she has a honest intention to replace or return the property.

- DPP v Lavender held that a person  treating another's property as his/her own has intention to permanently deprive.

- R v Lloyd held that burrowing a property and keeping it until "the goodness,  the virtue or practical value has gone out of the property" is intention to permanently deprive.

- R v Easom held that conditional intention to deprive is not sufficient for theft.