Law 5110 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Criminal Law Revision Committee, Cgu Plc, Actus Reus
Theft
Theft Act 1968
S1 - “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with
the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.”
S3 - Appropriation - Actus reus
-“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 without stealing it, any later assumption of a right
to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.”
Assumption of the rights of an owner
-Selling, destroying, possessing, consuming, using, lending or hiring it out.
-Pitham v Hehl - D sold furniture belonging to another which was held to be appropriation, does
not matter if the furniture was removed from the house or not. D assumed the rights of the
owner when he offered the furniture for sale.
-Corcoran v Anderton - Seizing of a handbag was enough for an appropriation, even though it
fell to the floor.
-Morris - Does not have to assume all the rights of an owner, simply any right. Switching price
labels was held to be appropriation
S3 (1) - Later assumption of a right (of ownership)
-Defendant picks up a coat thinking it was his, takes it home and in the morning realises it is not
his yet keeps it - This would amount to appropriation.
-Atakpu and Abrahams - Held that they appropriated the cars in their respective countries
(Germany and Belguims) and so outside of English jurisdiction.
Consent to the appropriation.
-Lawrence - Italian student opened up his wallet after Lawrence said that £1 was not enough.
Lawrence took an extra £6 yet the journey should have only cost 50p. He argued the defence of
consent yet CoA and HoL rejected it stating there was appropriation.
-Morris - HoL did not take the same view. Lord Roskill said “appropriation involves not an act
expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner but an act by way of adverse interference with or
usurpation of the rights of an owner” - confused the situation as they did not say whether
Lawrence was overruled or distinguished.
-Dobson v General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Corp - Civ case - insurance claim on theft
of some jewellery after he had agreed to sell the jewellery to X, who gave as payment a stolen
building society cheque. Insurance company refused as there had been no theft, only deception
(s15). CoA held there had been a theft as Dobson would not have accepted the exchange had
he known the cheque was not valid and so the property still belongd to Dobson whilst X had
appropriated it when he took delivery of it.
-Skipp - Lorry driver posed as a haulage contractor, given three loads of ornages and onions to
take from London to Leicester. He drove off with the loads, CoA held that collecting the loads
was done with the consent of the owner and appropriation occurred when he diverted from his
authorised route.
Parker LJ considered this case in Dobson and states there had been “express authority”, more
than consent.
