RECAP: CONSENT

1. Principle in Slingsby?
2. What crime is consent never a
defence to?
3. Case on implied consent?
4. Principle in Barnes?
5. Principle in Brown?
6. Principle in Wilson?
7. Case on mistaken belief in
consent?
8. Principle in Olugboja?
9. Principle in Tabassum?
OFFENCES TO PROPERTY Theft
 THEFT

 Theft is a triable either way

offence.
 Prior to the Theft Act 1968 (TA
1968), this area of law was
covered by common law and
was complex.
 The TA 1968 effectively codified
the law of some property
offences, but it has continued
to evolve through the cases.
 DEFINITION OF THEFT –
S.1 TA 1968
"a person is guilty of theft if he
dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the
intention to permanently deprive
the other of it."
 Theft

Actus Mens
Reus Rea

With the
Appropriation Belonging to Dishonestly – intention to
Property – s. 4 s. 2 permanently
– s. 3 another – s. 5
deprive – s. 6
 ACTUS REUS OF THEFT

 The actus reus of theft is:

Appropriation Property Belonging to

another
APPROPRIATION S. 3

Appropriation is much more than just

taking something. It is defined in s.
3(1) TA68 as any assumption of any
rights of the owner.
R v Pitham and Hehl (1977)
Selling property is an appropriation.

R v Morris (1983)
Switching labels on items to pay a
lower price is an appropriation for
theft.
Corcoran v Anderton (1980)
Tugging a handbag can be an
appropriation (even if the victim
does not let go).
R v Lawrence (1971)
COA and HOL both stated that
taking with consent of the
owner was still appropriation.

R v Hinks (2000)
The HOL decided on a majority
of 3 to 2 that accepting a valid
gift is appropriation. This has the
advantage of protecting
vulnerable people.
PROPERTY – S. 4

 Property includes:

 Money
 Personal property
 Land and buildings
 Things in action (cheques; bank
accounts in credit)
R v Kelly and Lindsay (1998)
A dead body is not normally ‘property’
but the body parts in this case were
property because they had acquired
some value by the dissection and
preserving techniques.

Oxford v Moss (1979)

Information written on an examination
paper was held not to be property.
D was liable for stealing the
examination paper itself but not the
information on it!
THINGS WHICH CANNOT BE STOLEN

Some things cannot be

stolen:
s. 4(3) TA68 – wild
mushrooms or wild flowers

s. 4(4) TA68 - wild creatures

 THEFT RECAP
1. What is the actus reus of theft?
2. What is the mens rea of theft?
3. Define appropriation
4. Principle in R v Morris?
5. Principle in R v Lawrence?
6. Principle in R v Pitham and Hehl?
7. Which section defines property?
8. What cannot be stolen?
9. Principle in Oxford v Moss?
10.Principle in Kelly and Lindsay?
BELONGING TO ANOTHER S. 5

"Belonging to another" is given a

very wide definition by the Theft
Act and includes possession or
control, as well as proprietary
interests.

Possession
Control
Proprietary right
R v Turner (No. 2) (1971)
D was guilty of stealing his own car
when he took it from the possession
and control of the garage without
their knowledge.

R v Woodman (1974)
D took scrap metal from a disused
factory site. The occupiers of the
site were unaware that the scrap
metal was there.
D can be liable for stealing property
that the person in possession
doesn’t even know is there.
 PROPERTY RECEIVED UNDER AN
OBLIGATION – S. 5 (3)

Davidge v Bennet (1984)

D was given money by her
flatmates to pay the gas bill
but spent the money on
Christmas presents instead.
D guilty of theft using s.
5(3). D had an obligation to
use the money in a
particular way.
 PROPERTY OBTAINED BY A MISTAKE
– S. 5(4)
AG's Reference (No. 1 of
1983) (1985)
D was mistakenly overpaid
by £74.74 directly into her
bank account.
COA held that if there was
not an honest attempt to
pay back the money then
there could be a theft.
However the jury acquitted.
DISHONESTY

The D must have

appropriated the property
dishonestly.

The Theft Act 1968 does not

define dishonesty but does
give 3 situations in which a
D's behaviour is not
considered dishonest.
TASK: ARE THESE SITUATIONS THEFT?
You are panicking about the
law exam and take a You take £5 from your mums’
textbook from Chris’ purse to travel to school and buy
classroom. lunch.
You are given a vase by your
aunt. An auctioneer values it
at £10 but then sells it for
£1000 You are owed money by your
employer and so when you do
some extra work, you overcharge
You are from a country, where, if them to get your money.
goods are placed outside a shop,
you can just help yourself. You
take a pair of jeans from a rack
outside a shop.
You find an envelope in the street
with £100 in it.
You find an unusual diamond ring
on the floor at college.

You borrow a pair of You are in a supermarket and

trainers, and then decided see that your favourite
to keep them because your chocolates are priced at 10p
You take £100 from a teacher’s brother forgot about them. on the shelf when they should
purse to feed the homeless. be £10. you buy 10 packs.
BEHAVIOUR WHICH IS NOT DISHONEST S.
2(1)
s.2(1)(a):
D believes he has the legal right to the property.

s.2(1)(b)
D believes he would have the other's consent. 

s.2 (1) (c)

D believes the owner of the property cannot be
discovered by taking reasonable steps.
 
WILLING TO PAY

s. 2(2) TA68 states that:

"a person's appropriation of property belonging to another

may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay
for the property."

So, a person could still be dishonest if they take property and

leave payment for it.
This prevents a person from taking whatever he likes
regardless of the owner's wishes.
THE COMMON LAW TEST FOR
DISHONESTY
Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017)
the test for dishonesty is:
“whether D’s conduct is
dishonest by the standards of
ordinary decent people”.

Confirmed in:

R v Barton (2020)
INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE
- S. 6

Usually it can be quite obvious if

the D has the intention to
permanently deprive.
For example, D takes some money
and spends it.
This is true even if the D intends to
replace the money at a later date.
R v Velumyl (1989)
D's conviction for theft was upheld.
The banknotes he intended to replace
the stolen money with would be
different banknotes so he did have
the intention to permanently deprive.

R v Lloyd (1985)
The court held that borrowing could
be theft under s. 6 if the property was
borrowed ‘until the goodness, the
virtue, the practical value …has gone
out of the article.
 CONDITIONAL INTENT

R v Easom (1971)
D picked up a handbag in the cinema,
rummaged through the contents and
then replaced the handbag without
taking anything.
COA quashed D's conviction for theft
stating that the "conditional" intention
to deprive was not enough to satisfy
the mens rea of theft.
 THEFT RECAP
1. What is the actus reus of theft?
2. What is the mens rea of theft?
3. Principle in Hinks?
4. What cannot be stolen under the Theft Act?
5. What does property received under an obligation s.5(3)
mean?
6. What does property received by mistake under s. 5 (4) mean?
7. What are the 3 situations where D is NOT dishonest?
8. Principle in Ghosh?
9. Principle in Lloyd?
10. Principle in Velumyl?
 THEFT SUMMARY
s. 1 – Definition
Actus Reus
s.3 (1) Appropriation - Pitham; Morris; Corcoran; Lawrence; Hinks
s. 4 (1) Property - Kelly and Lindsay; Oxford v Moss
s. 5 (1) Belonging to another – Turner; Woodman
obligation – s. 5(3) - Davidge v Burnett
mistake – s. 5(4) - Ags Reference (No. 1 of 1983) (1985)
Mens Rea
s. 2 (1) Dishonesty
Behaviour which is not dishonest: s. 2(1)(a); s. 2(1) (b); 2(1) (c)
Ghosh test
Ivey v Genting
Intention to permanently deprive – s. 6 – Velumyl; Lloyd; Easom
 THEFT MINI-SCENARIOS

 Fill in the table by

identifying what
the theft issue is in
each scenario.
 Is there a theft?
 Relevant section?
 Case?
 HOW TO DO AN IDEA ON THEFT
 Identify – D (use your character’s name) might be liable for theft
when he…. (say what he took)
 Define the AR of theft is…. and the MR of theft is….
 Explain
 the AR with cases
 s.3 (1) Appropriation
 s. 4 (1) Property
 s. 5 (1) Belonging to another
 Explain the MR with cases
 s. 2 (1) Dishonesty
 s. 6 Intention to permanently deprive
 …. Apply – D meets the AR because… (go through EVERY element)
D meets the MR because… (go through BOTH elements)
TIMED IDEA – 15 MINS!

Lucy and Kate are teachers with

desks next to each other in the
staffroom. Lucy needs to staple
some exam papers together. She
sees Kate’s stapler on her desk,
uses it and puts it on her own
desk.
 ANSWER
I –. Lucy might be guilty of theft of the stapler. (1)
D – The AR of theft is: appropriation of property belonging to another. (1)
 MR is the dishonest intention to permanently deprive. (1)

E – Appropriation s. 3(1) TA68 any assumption of the rights of the owner: selling items (Pitham and Hehl);
switching labels (Morris); and with consent (Lawrence). (1)
 Property - s.4 as money, personal, real property, land, tangible and intangible property (Kelly and Lindsay). (1)
 Belonging to another - s. 5. It includes possession or control (Turner) as well as proprietary right. (1)
 Property under an obligation (Davidge v Burnett) and property by mistake (Ags Ref No1). (1)
 MR – s. 2 (a)-(c) situations which are not dishonest. (1)
 Ghosh gave the 2 part test which was changed in Ivey v Genting. (1)
 Borrowing can become a theft under s.6 (Lloyd). (1)

A – Lucy meets AR - appropriated property (stapler) belonging to another (Kate). (1)

 The issue here is whether Lucy meets the MR.
 Reasonable belief in consent - so not dishonest (s.2(1)(b)). (1)
 No intention to permanently deprive – but borrowing where ‘goodness, value, and virtue’ is gone (Lloyd). (1)
 If Lucy has used all the staples, this may be the case. (1)
 Also, she cannot return the exact staples (Velumyl). (1)
 Therefore, Lucy guilty of theft. (1)
TIMED IDEA – 15 MINS!

It is raining heavily, so Ronnie

decides to borrow Luke’s
umbrella, which he has
borrowed several times
before. The umbrella gets
damaged in the wind, so
Ronnie throws it away and
decides not to mention it to
Luke.
I –. Ronnie might be guilty of theft of the umbrella. (1)
D – The AR of theft is: appropriation of property belonging to another. (1)
 MR is the dishonest intention to permanently deprive. (1)

E – Appropriation s. 3(1) TA68 any assumption of the rights of the owner: selling items (Pitham and Hehl);
switching labels (Morris); and with consent (Lawrence). (1)
 Property - s.4 as money, personal, real property, land, tangible and intangible property (Kelly and Lindsay). (1)
 Belonging to another - s. 5. It includes possession or control (Turner) as well as proprietary right. (1)
 Property under an obligation (Davidge v Burnett) and property by mistake (Ags Ref No1). (1)
 MR – s. 2 (a)-(c) situations which are not dishonest. (1)
 Ghosh gave the 2 part test which was changed in Ivey v Genting. (1)
 Borrowing can become a theft under s.6 (Lloyd). (1)

A – Ronnie meets s. 3(1) – by using and throwing away the umbrella, he has appropriated it. (1)
 The umbrella is personal property under s. 4 (1)
 The umbrella belonged to another under s. 5 (Luke) (1)
 Ronnie may argue no MR because of reasonable belief in consent - so not dishonest (s.2(1)(b)). (1)
 He may say that no intention to permanently deprive – but borrowing where ‘goodness, value, and virtue’ is
gone is still theft (Lloyd). (1)
 Ronnie used all the goodness, value and virtue and threw it away, so has intention to permanently deprive. (1)
 Reasonable man would say he was dishonest in not telling Luke (Ivey). (1)
 Therefore, Ronnie guilty of theft. (1)
 THEFT SCENARIO
Yuri and Andrew are flat-sharing students. Whilst shopping,
Yuri takes some sunglasses from a display and slips them into
his pocket. He sees a shirt priced £50, swaps the price-tag for
one marked £30 and pays the lower price. Andrew gives Yuri
£50 for the gas bill. Yuri uses it to buy lottery tickets but wins
nothing. Yuri buys a DVD and pays for it with a £10 note. The
assistant mistakenly gives him change for a £20 note. Yuri
realises this once he is outside the shop but keeps the money.
Andrew takes Yuri’s football club season ticket from his room
and returns the ticket three months later when only one match
remains. Andrew sees an exam paper on his professor’s desk.
He makes a photocopy and leaves the original on the desk.
Discuss the criminal liability for theft of Yuri and Andrew. (25)
 ISSUES

1. Yuri slips the sunglasses into his pocket.

2. Yuri swapping the price tags
3. Yuri spending £50 on the lottery
4. Yuri being given excess change
5. Andrew using Yuri’s season ticket
6. Andrew copying the exam paper
TASK

Write up essay answer

to Yuri and Andrew
using IDEA.

You might want to use

your theft revision
chart and theft flow
charts.
 THEFT ESSAY

‘Those who argue that the actus reus

of theft is too complicated are quite
wrong; the rules are simple, clear and
raise no great problems.’
Discuss the extent to which this
statement is accurate. (25)
 THEFT EVALUATION ESSAY
Define theft – designed to simplify Larcency, but it has not.
Appropriation - Too wide – Lawrence and Hinks – but they do protect
vulnerable victims
Wide puts emphasis on dishonesty – which is also vague!
Property - Strange that it lists what is not property, rather than what is.
Problems with exam papers – Oxford v Moss
Belonging to another - very wide to help prosecution (only have to prove
possession)
Woodman – fair – a crime is still a crime even if V does not know
Hinks – gifts – 3;2 split in HOL
5(3) and 5 (4) complicated but necessary to cover everyday situations
Parent and child – obligation?
Hard to prove D knew he was overpaid – Ags Ref
Dishonest - Adds to complicated AR – negative definition in s. 2
Can depend on cultural norms
Ghosh and Ivey
Intention to permanently deprive
Problem with when a borrowing becomes a theft - Lloyd
Law Commission reforms
 THEFT
A01 A03
s. 1 – Definition Designed to simplify Larcency, but it has not.
Actus Reus Appropriation - Too wide – Lawrence and Hinks –
s.3 (1) Appropriation but they do protect vulnerable victims
Wide puts emphasis on dishonesty – vague!
s. 4 (1) Property Property - Lists what isn’t property!
s. 5 (1) Belonging to another Exam papers – Oxford v Moss
obligation – s. 5(3) Belonging to another - very wide to help
mistake – s. 5(4) prosecution (only have to prove possession)
Woodman – fair – still a crime
Mens Rea Hinks – gifts – 3;2 split in HOL
s. 2 (1) Dishonesty 5(3) and 5 (4) complicated but necessary to cover
Behaviour which is not dishonest: everyday situations
s. 2(1)(a); s. 2(1) (b); 2(1) (c) Parent and child – obligation?
Ghosh test Hard to prove D knew he was overpaid
Dishonest - negative definition in s. 2
Ivey v Genting Can depend on cultural norms
Intention to permanently deprive Ghosh and Ivey
– s. 6 Intention to permanently deprive
Problem with when a borrowing becomes a theft -
Lloyd
Law Commission reforms