A video for UK law students studying theft.
Theft is defined under s. 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 as "dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" and contains five key elements: dishonesty, appropriation, property, belonging to another and intention to permanently deprive.
This lecture looks at all five elements by splitting them up into the actus reus and the mens rea of the crime.
Appropriation means taking and this only needs to be a right; not all of the rights associated with property (Morris [1984]). Appropriation can even take place with consent or with title to the property since Gomez [1993] supported in Hinks [2000]. This is controversial and arguably diminishes the importance of the actus reus in theft.
Theft is also a finite act per Atakpu [1994] so a person can only be convicted on appropriation. However it will not be theft when the defendant is a bona fide purchaser.
Property is defined broadly and can include things in action (Kohn [1979]) and other intangible property (A-G of Hong Kong v Chan Nai-Keung [1987])
Belonging to another is normally obvious to see in a theft case but there are some unusual cases (Marshall [1998] and Turner (No. 2) [1971]) including where property is received for a particular purpose and where property is received by mistake (A-G’s Reference (No. 1 of 1983) [1985]).
Dishonesty is defined in s. 2 but the main test comes from Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 and students should see the podcast episode on that subject.
Finally intention to permanently deprive also has been given a broad interpretation by the courts to include a range of scenarios including ransom (Hall [1849]), property in a different form, (Richards [1844]) and pawning (Phetheon [1840]). Section 6(1) also deals with situations where property is taken “for a period…making it equivalent to outright taking”.
