R v Pitham and Hehl
R v Pitham and Hehl (1977)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Appropriation
Facts of the case:
- D sold furniture belonging to another person in that person’s house. It was held to be an appropriation as the offer to sell was an assumption of the rights of the owner.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- An appropriation can happen by the selling of property. The property does not need to be removed from its original place. Even if the owner is not deprived of their property, D can still have appropriated it by offering it for sale.
R v Vinall
R v Vinall (2011)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Appropriation
Facts of the case:
- Two young men were cycling when the Ds verbally abused them and punched one of them off his bike and chased both of them.
- One of the bikes was left behind and the Ds left it by a bus shelter before being stopped by the police shortly after.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The appeal raised issues on appropriation and intention to permanently deprive the victim from their property.
- The Court of Appeal stated either of two actions could be regarded as a sufficient assumption of the rights of the owner:
- The initial taking of the bike
- The act of abandoning it.
R v Morris
R v Morris (1983)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Appropriation
Facts of the case:
- Ds were convicted of theft under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 after switching the labels on products in a supermarket to obtain a lower price.
- One of the defendants was caught before he paid, while the other was only caught afterwards.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue faced by the Court was whether switching labels on the products and paying a lower price amounted to appropriation, as appropriation is defined in s3 of the Act as ‘the assumption by any person of the rights of the owner’.
- The convictions were upheld by the HoL. They held that the owners of the goods had a right to ensure that they were sold for the price the owner chose, which the Ds assumed when they switched the labels to be able to pay less. This amounted to an assumption of the owners’ rights, and therefore an appropriation.
Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police
Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police (1972)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Appropriation
Facts of the case:
An Italian student who spoke little English took a taxi ride for which the fare was about 50p.
He offered D a £1 note, but D said more money was needed and proceeded to take a further £1 note and a £5 note from the student’s open wallet.
D was convicted of theft and appealed unsuccessfully to the House of Lords. D argued that he had not stolen the money because the victim had consented to its being taken by him.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
An appropriation can take place notwithstanding the consent of the owner.
R v Gomez
R v Gomez (1993)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Appropriation
Facts of the case:
- D, a shop assistant, persuaded the manager to sell goods on the basis of two cheques which he knew to be stolen and had no value.
- The Court held that there could be an “appropriation” even where the owner (i.e. the shop manager) consented.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The HoL followed Lawrence v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1972) and upheld the convictions. An appropriation does not require absence of consent.
R v Hinks
R v Hinks (2000)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Appropriation
Facts of the case:
- D, a young mother, befriended a 53 year old man called John Dolphin. He had been left money by his father and was naïve and of limited intelligence.
- Over a period of 7 months, D coerced and encouraged Mr Dolphin to withdraw sums, amounting to £60,000, from his account and for them subsequently to be deposited in D’s account. Mr Dolphin also made withdrawals of the max sum of £300 every day so that he lost most of his savings and inherited money.
- She was convicted of theft and appealed on the ground that the sums given were gifts which were valid in civil law.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue is whether there was an “appropriation” in terms of section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 where D accepted a gift of property from Mr Dolphin.
- Based on Lawrence and Gomez, the Court rejected the submission that a person does not appropriate property unless the victim retains some proprietary interest. A gift could be appropriation where the recipient had acted dishonestly.
R v Atakpu and Abrahams
R v Atakpu and Abrahams (1994)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Appropriation
Facts of the case:
- Ds hired luxury cars in Brussels and Germany using false documents, and brought the cars to the UK.
- They were arrested in Dover.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Following the law in Gomez, it was held that the moment of appropriation was when they obtained the cars. Therefore, the theft was completed outside the jurisdiction of UK courts as driving them into England was not a new appropriation or a continuing act.
R v Kelly and Lindsay
R v Kelly and Lindsay (1998)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Property
Facts of the case:
- 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 basis that body parts are not property.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- CofAppeal held that parts of a corpse are capable of being property within section 4 of the Theft Act, if they have acquired different attributes by virtue of the application of skill, such as dissection or preservation techniques, for exhibition or teaching purposes.
Oxford v Moss
Oxford v Moss (1979)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Property
Facts of the case:
- D was a uni student who acquired an examination paper he was due to sit.
- Although it was accepted that he didn’t intend to permanently deprive the uni from the paper, he was charged with theft.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Held that confidential information can’t be stolen, because it’s not property.
R v Turner (No.2)
R v Turner (No.2) (1971)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Belonging to another
Facts of the case:
- D left his car in a garage for repairs and took it back using the spare key without paying the bill.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Held that, despite D being the car’s owner, the car was in possession and control of the garage until the payment was made.
- Property belongs to anyone in possession or control, meaning that an owner of property could be guilty of theft of their own property.
R v Woodman
R v Woodman (1974)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Belonging to another
Facts of the case:
- D took scrap metal from a disused factory site and was convicted of theft.
- The occupiers of the site were unaware that the scrap metal was there, and D claimed that because of this the scrap metal did not belong to another.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- It is possible for someone to be in possession or control of property even though they don’t know it’s there.
- Because the company was in control of the site, it was also in control of the property within it.
R (on the application fo Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates’ Court
R (on the application fo Ricketts) v Basildon Magistrates’ Court (2010)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Belonging to another
Facts of the case:
- D had taken bags containing items of property from outside a charity shop. He argued that the original owner had abandoned the property and therefore it didn’t belong to another.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Court ruled that when goods are left for someone, the goods belong to the original owner until the new owner takes possession of them.
R v Webster
R v Webster (2006)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Belonging to another
Facts of the case:
- D was an army sargeant who had served in Iraq. He had been awarded a medal for his service there.
- By mistake the Ministry of Defence sent him a second copy of the medal. He sold it on Ebay and was convicted of theft of the medal.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The conviction was upheld becasue the Ministry still had a propietary interest in the medal.
- Where D owns property and is in possession or control of porperty, they can still be guilty of stealing it if another person has a proprietary interest in it.
R v Hall
R v Hall (1972)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Belonging to another
Facts of the case:
- Regards s5.3 of the Theft Act (property received under an obligation).
- D, a travel agent, received money from his clients to arrange flights to America.
- Although the money was paid into the firm’s account, none of the flights materialised and D didn’t refund the money.
- The conviction was quashed due to there being no obligation to use each deposit to buy particular tickets.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Under subsection 5 (3) there must be an obligation to retain and deal with the property in a particular way.
- So, where money is paid to a business and the person paying only expects it to be paid into the businesses’ bank account, then if that is what happens, there cannot be theft.
R v Klineberg and Marsden
R v Klineberg and Marsden (1999)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Belonging to another
Facts of the case:
- Money was paid for timeshare apartments on the understanding that the money would be held in an independent trust.
- Money was instead paid into the company’s general accont and Ds were convicted of theft.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Held that where there is a clear obligation to deal with property in a particular way, D is guilty of theft when the money is dealt with in another way.
Davidge v Bunnett
Davidge v Bunnett (1984)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Belonging to another
Facts of the case:
- D received cheques from her flat mates which were to pay for the communal gas bill.
- D spent the money on Christmas presents and left the flat without paying the gas bill.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- She was liable for theft as under s.5(3) TA 1968 the cheques had been given with a clear obligation to apply the money for payment of the gas bill.
- There can be an obligation to deal with property in a certain way in less formal situations.
Attorney-General’s Reference (No.1 of 1983)
Attorney-General’s Reference (No.1 of 1983) (1985)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Belonging to another
Facts of the case:
- D, a police woman, received an overpayment in her wages by mistake.
- She had noticed that she had received more than she was entitled to but did not say anything to her employer. She did not withdraw any of the money from her bank account.
- She was convicted of theft of the property (things in action)
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- By s 5 (4) she was under an obligation to ‘make a restoration’. If she did not then there was an appropriation of property.
- Whether D was guilty of theft would depend on whether or not she acted dishonestly.
R v Gilks
R v Gilks (1972)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Belonging to another
Facts of the case:
- D was overpaid for winnings on a bet.
- He realised the error and decided not to make the repayment.
- He could only be guilty of theft if s 5 (4) applied. As betting transactions were not at the time enforceable at law, s 5 (4) didn’t apply and D was found not guilty.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Under s 5 (4), there must be a legal obligation to restore the property. Where there is no legal obligation, the D is not guilty of theft.
R v Small
R v Small (1987)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Dishonestly
Facts of the case:
- D took a car - he said he believed it was abandoned as it had been left for two weeks in the same place. It was unlocked and with the keys in the ignition. There was no petrol in the tank and the battery and tyres were flat.
- He managed to start the car, and was driving it until he saw police flashing their lights at him, at which point he panicked and ran off.
- The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction of theft bc he had an honest belief that the owner could not be found and there was evidence that he might have believed the car was abandoned.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Held that the fact that a person’s belief is unreasonable does not prevent D from relying on s 2 (1) which provides that a person’s appropriation of porperty belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest if they appropriate the property in the belief that:
- They have in law the right to deprive the other from it.
- They would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation.
- The person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
- In this case, the third reason applies.
R v Holden
R v Holden (1991)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Dishonestly
Facts of the case:
- D worked for Kwikfit. He took some used tyres and was convicted of theft.
- He appealed contending that he was not dishonest since other workers did the same and he believed that he was allowed to do the same.
- However, his contract of employment contained a clause forbidding the taking of used items.
- The CofAppeal quashed his conviction.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- As the test for dishonesty is subjective, a person is not dishonest if they believed, reasonably or not, that they had a legal right to the property, proving the belief was genuinely held.
R v Robinson
R v Robinson (1977)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Dishonestly
Facts of the case:
- D was owed £7 by a woman.
- He approached the woman’s husband holding a knife, and a fight ensued during which the woman’s husband dropped a £5 note.
- D picked up the £5 note and demanded the remaining £2 owed to him.
- D was convicted of robbery and he appealed against his conviction. - His conviction was quashed by the CofAppeal.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- As D honestly believed he was entitled to the money in law, he did not have the requisite mens rea for theft, and because proof of theft is a necessary pre-requisite for proof of a robbery, the defendant could not have committed a robbery.
R v Ghosh
R v Ghosh (1982)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Dishonestly
Facts of the case:
- D was a consultant at a hospital who falsely claimed to have carried out a surgical operation in order to claim money when in fact that operation had been carried out by someone else under the NHS.
- He was charged with theft, and his defence was that there had been no deception as he was entitled to the money. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Leading case on what is meant by ‘dishonestly’.
- CofAppeal set out the test to be used when deciding someone’s dishonesty.
- The test is both subjective and objective.
- 1. Jury must decide whether the D’s conduct was dishonest
according to the standards of reasonable and honest people
(the objective test). If it was not, that would be the end of the
matter.
- 2. If it was dishonest by those standards, the jury then had to go
on to decide whether D himself realized that what he was
doing was dishonest by those standards (the subjective test). If
it was, then the defendant was ‘dishonest’ under the 1968 Act.
- 2nd part of Ghosh test now in doubt following a unanimous decision of Supreme Court in civil case of Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd t/a Crockfords (2017).
- Held that the subjective test is irrelevant and not required when
determining D’s dishonesty. - Although obiter dicta for criminal law cases, it will probably
become precedent.
- Held that the subjective test is irrelevant and not required when
DPP v Gohill
DPP v Gohill (2007)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Dishonestly
Facts of the case:
- Ds were managers of a tool hire company. They allowed some customers to borrow equipment for periods of less than 2 hours whithout charge.
- Ds stated that they regarded this as good customer service, as it kept customers who frequently hired happy. It was not done for personal gain as they received no money for what they did.
- Magistrates acquitted Ds of theft on the basis that they ‘were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people they had acted dishonestly.’
- Divisional Court allowed prosecution’s appeal. Court decided Ds’ behaviour was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- This case shows the problems of applying the Ghosh test for dishonesty.
- It illustrates how magistrates and judges might not agree on what is dishonest, so it it even more likely that juries will have different views on what is dishonest.
R v Velumyl
R v Velumyl (1989)
PROPERTY OFFENCES: THEFT- Intention of permanently depriving
Facts of the case:
- D was a company manager who took money from the office safe and claimed that he intended to return it after the weekend.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The Court found that the appellant had the required intention to be convicted of theft. He could not have intended to return the exact notes or coins taken, so he must have intended to permanently deprive his employers of them.
-
1- Property offences: Theft43
-
2- Robbery12
-
3- Murder9
-
4- Voluntary manslaughter0
-
5- Involuntary manslaughter0
-
6- Preliminary offence: Attempt0
-
7- Capacity defences32
-
8- Necessity defences0
-
CASES27
-
9- Rules & theory in human rights law13
-
10- Human Rights in International Law7
-
11- Human Rights in the UK before & after the HRA 199816
-
14- Art 8 ECHR: the right to respect for family & private life26
-
15- Article 10 ECHR: the right to freedom of expression7
-
16- Article 2 ECHR: the right to life17
-
17- Article 5 ECHR: the right to liberty and security of the person0
-
18- Article 11 ECHR: right to freedom of assembly and association7
