THEFT

Everyone knows that theft is wrong and a crime. The definition given in the Theft
Act 1968 attempts to express the meaning of theft in legal terms, so that there are
rules to support decisions in cases.
However, there have been occasions where the application of the Act has resulted
in decisions that may be considered unjust.
When the Theft Act 1968 was passed, the definition of ‘theft’ was meant to be in
simple everyday language that ordinary people could understand. However, some
case decisions on the elements of theft show that is not always the case.
The definition of theft

Theft is defined in s 1 of the 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.’

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

The definition of theft
Sections 2-6 of the Act cover, in order, the
meaning of the words and phrases in the
definition, which makes it easy to remember
the section numbers:
• section 2 – dishonestly (part of mens rea)
• section 3 – appropriates (part of the actus
reus)
• section 4 – property (part of the actus reus)
• section 5 – belonging to another (part of the
actus reus)
• section 6 - with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it (part of the mens rea)

All the elements of the actus reus and mens rea

must be proved for there to be theft. LAW WITH ALI NADEEM
The definition of theft

Remember that the offence is contained

in s 1. A person charged with theft is
always charged with stealing ‘contrary to
s 1 of the Theft Act 1968’. Sections 2-6
are definition sections explaining s 1 and
do not themselves create any offence.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

Actus reus of theft
The actus reus of theft is made
up of the three elements
contained in the phrase
‘appropriates property belonging
to another’. To prove the actus
reus, it has to be shown that
there was appropriation by the
defendant (s 3) of something
which is property within the
definition of the Act (s 4) and
which, at the time of the
appropriation, belonged to
another (s 5).

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM
APPROPRIATION
Section 3(1) states:
‘Any assumption by a person of the
rights of an owner amounts to an
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 it as an
owner.’

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

APPROPRIATION
The important words are ‘any
assumption by a person of the rights
of an owner amounts to
appropriation’. The word
‘appropriation’ is significant because
it replaces the word ‘taking’ in the old
law that existed prior to the Act.
Appropriation is the act of taking
something physically, such as a thief
taking a wallet from a victim’s pocket
without their knowledge.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

APPROPRIATION
However, a wide variety of acts can
be considered appropriation
• physical picking up an item
• destroying property
• throwing property away
• selling property
• switching price labels on items
• giving worthless cheques in
payment
• receiving a gift and deciding to
keep an item.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 REMEMBER
Appropriation alone does not constitute theft. It is only one of the five elements that must be
proved for there to be theft.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

Rights of an owner
When deciding a case, the rights of
the owner must first be established,
before deciding whether any of
them have been taken.
The rights of an owner include
• selling the property or destroying
it
• possessing it
• consuming or using it
• lending it, or,
• hiring it out.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

Rights of an owner
For there to be appropriation, the
thief must do something which
assumes (takes over) at least one
of the owner’s rights.
This can be seen clearly in R v Vinall
(2011). This is, in fact, a robbery
case, but as we will see in the next
chapter, the offence of robbery
requires a theft to have taken place.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

R v Vinall (2011)
Two young men were cycling when they
encountered the defendants, who
subjected them to verbal abuse and then
punched one from his bicycle, made
other threats and chased them for a
short distance. The defendants walked
away, one of them having picked up the
bicycle. The bicycle was left by a bus
shelter some 45 meters further on, and
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 has been
committed.
LAW WITH ALI NADEEM
R v Vinall (2011)
With respect to appropriation, the Court
of Appeal stated either of two actions
could be regarded as a sufficient
assumption of the rights of owner:

• the initial act of taking the bicycle

• the subsequent act of abandoning the

bicycle.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

Rights of an owner
The rights of an owner also include
the right to sell property.
Appropriation by assuming the right
to sell is demonstrated by the case
of R v Pirhtam and Hehl (1977)

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

R v Pitham and Hehl (1977)
The defendant tried to sell furniture
belonging to another person and in that
person’s house. This was held to be an
appropriation. The offer to sell was an
assumption of the rights of an owner and
the appropriation took place at that
point. It did not matter whether the
furniture was removed from the house or
not. Even if the owner was never
deprived of the property, the defendant
had still appropriated it by assuming the
rights of the owner to offer the furniture
for sale.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

Rights of an owner
The right to destroy property is also
an owner’s right. This means that if
the defendant destroys property
belonging to another person, they
can be charged with theft, although
they have also, of course,
committed the separate offence of
criminal damage.
Similarly, if the property is not
destroyed but merely thrown away,
there is an infringement of the
owner’s rights.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

Rights of an owner
R v Morris (1983) confirmed that
appropriation can apply to any of
the owner’s rights and not
necessarily all of them.
As such, the courts have been able
to take a wide interpretation of
appropriation.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

R v Morris (1983)
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 the theft was
upheld, as he had assumed a right by
switching the price labels.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 CONSENT TO APPROPRIATION
Can a defendant appropriate an item when it has been given to them by the owner?
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.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 CONSENT TO APPROPRIATION
So what is the position where the owner has allowed the defendant to take something because
the owner thought that the defendant was taking what was owed to them?
This point was considered in Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police (1972)

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police (1972)
An Italian student, who spoke very little
English, arrived at Victoria Station and showed
an address to Lawrence, who was a taxi driver.
The journey should have cost 50p, but
Lawrence told him it was expensive. The
student got out of £1 note and offered it to the
driver. Lawrence said it was not enough, so
the student opened his wallet and allowed
Lawrence to help himself to another £6.
Lawrence argued that he had consented to
him taking it. The court stated that there was
appropriation in this situation.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

CONSENT TO APPROPRIATION
In R v Morris, the whole system of
supermarket shopping is shown to rely on the
customer taking goods from shelves and the
idea of the ‘honest shopper’. This means that
there is implied consent from shops operating
a self-service style of shopping to customers
removing items from shelves, or petrol from a
pump, for the purpose of purchasing the
goods at the price stated. Switching labels
involves an interference with the goods that is
not consented to.
The point was considered again in the case of
R v Gomez (1993), from which it can be seen
that any removal of gods from a shelf in a
shop is an appropriation.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

R v Gomez (1993)
The defendant worked as a shop assistant. He
persuaded the manager to accept in payment
for goods two cheques which he knew to be
stolen and had no value. The court stated that
an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the
owner of goods or consented to by him or her
could amount to an appropriation of the goods
within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

Consent without deception – the problem of gifts
Does the decision in R v Gomez (1993) extend to
situations where a person has given property to
another without any deception being made?

This was the problem raised in the case of R v

Hinks (2000)

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

R v Hinks (2000)
The defendant, aged 38, was friendly with John
Dolphin, aged 53, who was of limited intelligence
but understood the concept of ownership of
property and making a valid gift. The defendant
described herself as Mr Dolphin’s main carer.
In the period from April to November 1996, Mr
Dolphin withdrew sums totalling around £60000
from his building society account and deposited
them in the defendant’s account. Mr Dolphin also
gave the defendant a television set. During the
summer of that year, Mr Dolphin made
withdrawals of the maximum permissible sum of
£300 every day, so that he lost most of his savings
and money inherited from his father. LAW WITH ALI NADEEM
R v Hinks (2000)
The House of Lords decided that even though
there was a valid gift, there was an appropriation.
The question remained as to whether an ordinary
member of the public would see the act as
dishonest for there to be theft.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

Where does appropriation take place?
Another effect of the decision in
Gomez is that appropriation is
viewed as occurring at one
specific point in time. We have
already seen that in the case of R
v Vinall (2011). This is important,
as criminal law has a basic
principle of coincidence of actus
reus and mens rea. The later act,
in a case such as Vinall, might be
relevant one if, for example, it
was impossible to prove an
intention permanently to deprive
at the time of the initial taking of
the bicycle.
LAW WITH ALI NADEEM
Where does appropriation take place?
This is further illustrated by the
case of R v Atakpu (1994), where
it can be seen that appropriation
occurs the first time a person
assumes the rights of the owner.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1994)
The defendants hired cars in Germany and Belgiu
using false driving licenses and passports. They
were arrested at Dover and charged with theft.
The Court of Appeal quashed their convictions
because the moment of appropriation under the
law in Gomez was when they obtained the cars.
Therefore, the thefts had occurred outside the
jurisdiction of the English courts. As the
defendants had already stolen the cars in
Germany and Belgium, keeping and driving them
in England was not a new appropriation – a later
assumption of the right of an owner or a
continuing act.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 A later assumption of a right
Section 3(1) makes it clear that
there can also be an
appropriation where the
defendant acquires property
without stealing it but then later
decides to keep or deal with the
property as an owner. The
appropriation in this type of
situation takes place at the point
of ‘keeping’ or ‘dealing’.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 PROPERTY (s 4)
For there to be theft, the defendant must have appropriated ‘property’. Section 4(1) of the Theft Act
1968 gives a comprehensive definition of property, which states that almost anything can be stolen

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

‘Property includes money and
all other property real or
personal, including things in
action and other intangible
property.’

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 PROPERTY
There are five types of item
included in the definition of
‘property’:
• Money (coins and banknotes)
• real property
• personal property
• things in action
• other intangible property

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Real Property

‘Real Property’ is the legal term for land and

buildings. Under s 4(1),land can be stolen, but s
4(2) states that this can only occur in the three
particular circumstances:
1. The person dealing with the land does so in a
special capacity, for example a trustee or
under a power of attorney.
2. Someone not in possession of the land
severs anything forming part of the land
from the land.
3. Being in possession of the land under a
tenancy, the tenant appropriates the whole or
part of any fixture or structure let to be used
with the land.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 R v Gimbert (2018)
Through holding a power of attorney, the
defendant stole the victim’s house in order to
benefit himself and his two sons. However, the
power of attorney was invalid, so the exception
could not apply. The land in question could not
therefore be the basis of theft. The Act of
Parliament could not be modified to enable this
to be an offence of theft. In practice, most cases
of this nature are likely to fall within the Fraud
Act 2006, for example s 4 fraud by abuse of
position.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Personal Property

‘Personal property’ covers all moveable items

such as books, jewellery, clothes and cars, as well
as trivial items such as a sheet of paper or a
ballpoint pen.
In R v Kelly and Lindsay (1998) it was held that
even dead bodies and body parts can be personal
property for the purposes of theft.
The law has also recognised regenerative body
materials such as hair, blood and urine can be the
subject of property rights and are capable of being
stolen in certain circumstances.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 R v Kelly and Lindsay (1998)
Kelly was a sculptor who asked Lindsay to take
body parts from the Royal College of Surgeons
where he worked as a laboratory assistant. Kelly
made casts of the parts. They were convicted of
theft and appealed on the point of law that the
body parts were not property.

The Court of Appeal held that, though a dead

body was not normally property within the
definition of the Theft Act 1968, the body parts
were property as they ad acquired ‘different
attributes by virtue of the application of skill,
such as dissection or preservation techniques,
for exhibition or teacher purposes’.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Other intangible property

This refers to other rights which have no

physical presence but can be stolen under
the Theft Act 1968.
For example, the Act creates a separate
offence with respect to electricity.
The court have accepted that confidential
information cannot be stolen, as seen in
Oxford v Moss (1979), where knowledge
of the questions on an examination paper
was held not to be property.
 Oxford v Moss (1979)
A civil engineering undergraduate dishonestly
obtained a copy of his upcoming exam paper,
read its contents and returned the paper to
where he had found it. He was charged with theft
of confidential information but was not convicted
because information is not property under s 4 of
the Theft Act 1968. the court noted that there
were many options for the university in the civil
courts.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Things which cannot be stolen

There are some things which cannot be

stolen, except in specific circumstances
which are set out in ss 4(3) and 4(4) of the
Theft Act 1968. these include parts, but only
those growing wold, so it is possible to steal
cultivated plants. Taking apples from trees in
a farmer’s orchard would be theft, but picking
blackberries or mushrooms growing wild in
the hedgerow around a field would not be
theft, unless it was done for sale or reward or
other commercial purposes.
 Things which cannot be stolen

Wild animals cannot be stolen unless held in

captivity, such as in a zoo. Once the animal or
its carcass has been taken into possession by
someone, it can then be stolen. This would
happen where game is shot and then
collected by the hunter. There are other
criminal offences with respect to capturing or
killing certain types of animal.
 Belonging to another (s 5)

In order for there to be a theft of the property,

that property must ‘belong to another’.
However, s 5(1) of the Theft Act 1968 gives a
very wide definition of what is meant by
‘belonging to another’, so that possession or
control of the property or any proprietary
interest it is sufficient. One reason for making
it wide ranging is so that the prosecution
does not have to prove who the legal owner
is.
 Possession or control

Obviously, the owner of property normally has

possession and control of it, but there are
many other situations in which a person can
have possession and/or control of property.
Someone who hires a car has both
possession and control during the period of
hire. If the car is stolen during this time, then
the thief can be charged with stealing it from
the hirer. Equally, as the car-hire company
still owns the car, the thief could be charged
with stealing it from the company.
 Possession or control

The, possession or control of the item does

not have to be lawful. Where B has stolen
jewellery from A and subsequently C steals it
from B, B is in possession or control of that
jewellery and C can be charged with stealing
it from B. this is useful where it is not known
who the original owner is, as C can still be
guilty of theft.
The wide definition of ‘belonging to’ has led
to the situation in which an owner was
convicted of stealing his own car, in R v
Turner (No.2) (1971)
 Possession or control
R v Turner (No.2) (1971)
The defendant left his car at a garage for
repairs. It was agreed that he would pay for
the repairs when he collected the car, after
the repairs had been completed. When the
repairs were almost finished, the garage left
the car parked on the roadway outside the
premises. The defendant used a spare key to
take the car during the night without paying
for the repairs, and was subsequently tried
for theft of the vehicle.
 Possession or control
R v Turner (No.2) (1971)
The Court of Appeal recognized that, as
repairers, the garage had a right to retain
possession of the item being repaired until
payment was made. However, in upholding
the conviction, the court relied on the simple
words of the statute, that property belongs to
anyone in possession or control. This implies
that an owner could be guilty of the theft of
their own property .
 Possession or control
It is possible for someone to be in possession
or control of property even though they do not
know it is there.
R v Woodman (1974)
A company sold all the scrap metal on its site
to another company, which arranged for it to
be removed. However, a small amount of the
scrap was left on the site.
The company was in control of the site, as it
had put a fence around it and had notices
warning trespassers to keep out. He was
convicted of theft, even though the company
was unaware there was any scrap left.
 Possession or control
Where goods are left for someone, they
belong to the original owner until the new
owner takes possession of them.
R v Basildon Magistrates’ Court (2010)
In the first offence, Ricketts took bags
containing items of property from outside a
charity shop. He argued that the original owner
had abandoned the property and, therefore, it
did not belong to another. The court ruled that
the goods had not been abandoned: the donor
had attempted to deliver them to the charity
and delivery would only be complete when the
charity took possession.
 Possession or control
R v Basildon Magistrates’ Court (2010)
Until then, they were the property of the donor.
In the second offence, Ricketts had taken bags
of goods from a bin at the rear of another
charity shop. These goods were still in
possession of the charity at the time they were
appropriated by Ricketts.
 Proprietary interest
Where the defendant owns property and is in
possession and control of that property, they
can still be guilty of stealing it if another
person has a proprietary interest in it..
R v Hall (1972)
the defendant was a travel agent who received
deposits from clients for air trips to America.
He paid these deposits into the firm’s general
account but never organized any tickets and
was unable to return the money. He was
convicted of theft but on appeal his conviction
was quashed, because when he received the
deposits he was not under an obligation to deal
with them in a particular way. The Court of
Appeal stressed that each case depends on its
facts
 Sections 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4)
Section 5 makes it clear that in certain
situations, a defendant can be guilty of theft
even though the property may not ‘belong to
another’. These situations in which the
defendant is acting dishonestly and has either
caused a loss to another or made a gain.
They concern:
• trust property
• property received under an obligation
• property received by another’s mistake
 Section 5(2): trust property
This is simply where property is held by a
trustee on behalf of another. Trusts arise
in many ways, and there are many
charities which are trusts. The trustees
running the trust can be liable for the
theft of trust property.
 Section 5(3): property received under an obligation
There are many situations in which
property (usually money) is handed over
to the defendant on the basis that they
will keep it for the owner or will deal with
it in a particular way. The section tries to
make sure that such property is still
considered to ‘belong to the other’ for the
purpose of the law of theft.
 Section 5(4): property received by another’s mistake
Section 5(4) provides for situations where
property has been handed over to the
defendant by another’s mistake and so
has become the defendant’s property.
If there were no special provision in the
Act then this could not be ‘property
belonging to another ’for the purposes of
the law of theft.
This section was considered in Attorney-
General’s Reference (No.1 of 1983) (1985)
 Section 5(4): property received by another’s
mistake
Attorney-General’s Reference (No.1 of
1983) (1985)

The defendant, a police woman, had received an

overpayment of wages into her bank account.
She recognised it was an overpayment. She did
not withdraw any part of the money, but did not
return it. She was convicted of theft of the
property (a thing in action), as she was under an
obligation to return it.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Mens rea of theft
There are two elements which must be proved for the mens rea of theft:
• the appropriation of the property must be done ‘dishonestly’(s2), and
• there must be the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it (s6)

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Dishonesty (s 2)
The first point which needs to be proved
for the mens rea of theft is that when the
defendant appropriated the property
they did so dishonestly. Because of the
problems arising from making
appropriation so wide, proof of
dishonesty is now the main
distinguishing point between theft and
an honest appropriation.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Dishonesty (s 2)
There is no definition of what is meant
by dishonesty in the Theft Act 1986.
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.”

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Dishonesty (s 2)
In other words, if all the elements of
theft are present, the motive of the
defendant is not relevant.
This means that a modern-day Robin
Hood stealing to give to the poor would
be guilty of theft.
The defendant does not have to gain
anything from the theft.
The Act does set out behaviour which is
not dishonest, despite the difficulty of
proving something through a negative.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Dishonesty (s 2)
Behaviour which is not dishonest:
a) if he appropriates in the belief that he
has in law the right to deprive the
other of it.
b) in the belief that he would have the
other’s consent
c) in the belief that the person to whom
the property belongs cannot be
discovered by taking reasonable
steps

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Dishonesty (s 2)
These three situations all depend of the
defendant’s belief. It does not matter
whether it is a correct belief, or even
whether it is a reasonable belief.

If the defendant has a genuine belief in

one of these, they are not guilty of theft.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 ‘He has in law the right to
deprive the other of it, on
behalf of himself or of a third
person’

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 R v Small
The defendant noticed an old car parked
(1987)
in the road for some time with the key in
the ignition. Parts were missing, and
there was no petrol in it. The defendant
thought the car had been dumped and
therefore decided to get it going and
drive it. His defence to stealing the car
was that he believed it had been
abandoned by its owner and therefore he
had a legal right to take it. As there is no
requirement that the defendant's belief
is reasonable, it does not matter that a
reasonable person would have known to
contact the Driver and Vehicle Licensing
Agency to discover the owner.
Therefore, he was not guilty of theft. LAW WITH ALI NADEEM
 ‘He would have the other’s
consent if the other knew of the
appropriation and the
circumstances of it’

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 An example
Borrowing your friend’s ruler without
asking, using it and then returning it, or
continuing a habitual practice of
borrowing tools and machinery between
neighbours.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 ‘The person to whom the
property belongs cannot be
discovered by taking reasonable
steps’

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 An example
This exception commonly applies in
situations of finding items and then
keeping them. It requires an honest
belief by the defendant that the owner
cannot be found by taking reasonable
steps.
An example would be finding a small
coin in the street. Here, there is usually
an honest belief that the owner could not
reasonably be found, but that would not
be so if the defendant had just seen
someone pull the coin out of their pocket
along with a handkerchief and drop the
coin.
LAW WITH ALI NADEEM
‘The situation where a person is
willing to pay for something’

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 An example
In some situations, the defendant may
say that they are willing to pay for the
property or may, on taking the property,
leave money to pay for it.
This does not prevent the defendant’s
conduct from being dishonest, as s 2(2)
states that ‘a person’s appropriation of
property belonging to another may be
dishonest notwithstanding that he is
willing to pay for the property’.
This prevents the defendant taking what
they like, regardless of the owner’s
wishes.
LAW WITH ALI NADEEM
‘Test for dishonesty’

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 An example
Where the exceptions do not apply, the
courts have developed a test for what
amounts to dishonesty.
There is usually little argument about
whether an act is dishonest – for
example, shoplifting is obviously
dishonest and a jury would have little
difficulty with that.
The case R v Barton and Booth (2020)

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 R v Barton and Booth (2020)
Barton was the owner of a luxury nursing
home; Booth was the general manager.
For many years, Barton used his position
to defraud and steal from elderly and
dependant residents. Consistent
features in the case of each victim were
that they were wealthy, vulnerable and
childless.
He obtained over £4 million from his
criminal activities. Booth was accused of
assisting him.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 R v Barton and Booth (2020)
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the
test for dishonesty in criminal cases
was:
1. What was the defendant’s actual
state of knowledge or belief as to the
facts?
2. Was their conduct dishonest by the
standards of ordinary people?

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 INTENTION OF
PERMANENTLY DEPRIVING S 6
The final element that has to be proved
for theft is that the defendant had the
intention permanently to deprive the
other of the property. In many
situations there is no doubt that the
defendant had such an intention, for
example where an item is taken and
sold to another person or where cash
is taken and spent by the defendant.
 R v Velumyl (1989)
The defendant, a company manager,
took £1050 from the office safe. He said
that he was owed money by a friend and
he was going to replace the money when
that friend repaid him.
The court of Appeal upheld his
conviction for theft, as he had the
intention of permanently depriving the
company of the banknotes which he had
taken from the safe, even if he intended
to replace them later with other
banknotes to the same value.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 INTENTION OF PERMANENTLY DEPRIVING
S6
Another situation where there is a clear intention to permanently deprive is where the defendant
destroys property belonging to another. This can be charged as theft, although it is also criminal
damage.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Intention of Permanently Depriving S6

DPP v Lavender (1994)

The defendant took doors from a council

property which was being repaired and used
them to replace damage doors in his girlfriend’s
council flat (public housing). The doors were still
in the possession of the council but had been
transferred without permission from one council
property to another. Here the defendant was
dealing with the doors as his own by moving
them from one property to another without
permission.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Borrowing or lending

A difficulty with s 6 is the point at which

‘borrowing or lending’ comes within the
definition. Normally borrowing would not
be an intention to permanently deprive,
such as where a student takes a
textbook from a fellow student’s bag in
order to read one small section and then
replaces the book.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

R v Lloyd (1985), the
projectionist at a local cinema gave the
defendant a film that was showing at the
cinema, so that the defendant could make
an illegal copy. The defendant returned the
film in time for the next screening at the
cinema. His conviction for theft was
quashed because, by returning the film in
its original state, it was not possible to
prove an intention to permanently deprive.
‘The goodness, the virtue, the practical
value’ of the film had not gone out of it.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 Conditional
intent
Another difficulty is where the
defendant examines property to see if
there is anything worth stealing. What
is the position if they decide it is not
worth stealing and return it?
R v Easom (1971)

The defendant picked up a handbag

in a cinema, rummaged through the
contents and then replaced it
without having taken anything. His
conviction for theft of the handbag
and its contents was quashed.
There was no evidence that the
defendant had intended to
permanently deprive the owner of
the bag or the items in it, so he
could not be guilty of theft..

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

INTENTION PERMANENTLY TO DEPRIVE AND
THROWING THINGS AWAY
We have already seen this in the case
of R v Vinall (2011). For theft, the
intention permanently to deprive
could been formed when the bicycle
was first taken or at the time of the
subsequent abandonment. However,
if the jury found that the intention
was only formed at the time of the
abandonment, there was therefore
no robbery as the force was not used
‘immediately before’ the theft, and
not was it used ‘in order to’ steal.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

INTENTION PERMANENTLY TO DEPRIVE AND
THROWING THINGS AWAY
Subsequent ‘disposal’ of the property
may be evidence of either an
intention at the time of the taking or
an intention at the time of the
disposal. When the allegation is
theft, a later appropriation will
suffice; when the allegation is
robbery, it almost certainly not.

LAW WITH ALI NADEEM

 INTENTION PERMANENTLY TO DEPRIVE AND THROWING THINGS AWAY
Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset
Constabulary v Smith (1984)

The defendant broke into a parked car and

removed two cases. Heaving searched them,
they concealed the cases, one in a nearby hedge
and the other in a public toilet cubicle. The court
stated when the cases were taken from the car,
there was plain evidence capable of establishing
intention:
• permanently to deprive the owner of them,
and
• to treat the cases as the respondent’s own, to
dispose of regardless of the true owner’s
rights.
The cases were in fact so disposed of – they
were not taken back to the car.
LAW WITH ALI NADEEM
SENTENCING FOR THEFT
Theft offences are classified as either:
• theft from a shop or stall, or
• theft (general)
All theft offences are triable either way, with
a maximum penalty in the Crown Court of
seven years’ imprisonment and/or an
unlimited fine, and in the Magistrates’ Court
of six months’ imprisonment and/or an
unlimited fine (low-value shoplifting is
treated as a summary-only offence, where
the maximum is six months’ imprisonment).
SENTENCING FOR THEFT
General sentencing principles are set out in
Chapter 22.

Theft offences may be categorised

according to the value of the goods stolen
and additional harm suffered by the victim,
for example due to the size of type of their
business.
THAT’S ALL LAWYERS!
Any questions?