Theft Act 1968 Landmark Rulings
🔍 Theft Act 1968 Overview
Defines theft and related offences.
Key section: Section 1 - Theft: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
Other important concepts: Dishonesty, appropriation, property, belonging to another, intention to permanently deprive.
⚖️ Landmark Cases Explained
1. R v. Morris (1983) – Appropriation
Facts:
Defendant switched price labels in a supermarket.
Question: Did switching labels count as "appropriation" of property?
Held:
The court ruled that any assumption of the rights of the owner (e.g., changing price labels) counts as appropriation.
The theft can occur even if the property is not physically moved.
Key Principle:
Appropriation includes assuming any rights over the property, not just taking it.
2. R v. Gomez (1993) – Appropriation and Consent
Facts:
Defendant obtained goods with the owner’s consent, but by deception (using stolen cheques).
Question: Could there be appropriation if consent was obtained by deception?
Held:
The court held that consent obtained by deception is irrelevant; appropriation still occurs.
This overturned previous ideas that consent negates appropriation.
Key Principle:
Appropriation can occur even with consent obtained by fraud.
3. R v. Hinks (2000) – Appropriation of Gifts
Facts:
Defendant befriended a vulnerable man who gave her money as gifts.
Question: Could accepting gifts be appropriation?
Held:
The court ruled that accepting gifts can be appropriation if done dishonestly.
Consent of the owner (the donor) does not negate appropriation.
Key Principle:
Even lawful gifts can amount to theft if dishonestly obtained.
4. R v. Oxford (1990) – Property Belonging to Another
Facts:
Defendant took goods from a supermarket intending to pay but changed mind.
Question: When does property belong to another?
Held:
Property belongs to another if the person has possession or control.
Intent to permanently deprive confirms theft.
Key Principle:
Ownership includes possession or control, not just legal title.
5. R v. Lloyd (1985) – Intention to Permanently Deprive
Facts:
Defendant borrowed films, copied them, then returned them.
Question: Was there intention to permanently deprive?
Held:
The court ruled borrowing is not theft unless the borrowing is equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
Intention to permanently deprive must be clear.
Key Principle:
Temporary borrowing without intention to keep is not theft.
6. Ivey v. Genting Casinos (2017) – Dishonesty Test
Facts:
Defendant won money using a controversial technique.
Question: How is dishonesty judged?
Held:
The Supreme Court redefined dishonesty: focus on objective standards of honest people, but consider the defendant’s knowledge and beliefs.
Replaced the old two-stage test from Ghosh.
Key Principle:
Dishonesty judged by what honest people consider dishonest, with subjective context.
7. R v. Velumyl (1989) – Intention to Permanently Deprive
Facts:
Defendant took money from the company safe intending to replace it later.
Question: Was there intent to permanently deprive?
Held:
Taking specific banknotes with intent to replace different notes still counts as intention to permanently deprive.
The precise property must be returned.
Key Principle:
Returning equivalent property is not enough to avoid theft.
🔚 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Morris | 1983 | Appropriation | Any assumption of owner’s rights = appropriation |
| R v. Gomez | 1993 | Consent and appropriation | Consent obtained by deception ≠ negates appropriation |
| R v. Hinks | 2000 | Gifts as appropriation | Gifts can be theft if obtained dishonestly |
| R v. Oxford | 1990 | Property belonging to another | Possession/control counts as property belonging |
| R v. Lloyd | 1985 | Intention to permanently deprive | Borrowing ≠ theft unless equivalent to outright taking |
| Ivey v. Genting | 2017 | Dishonesty test | Objective standard of dishonesty with subjective context |
| R v. Velumyl | 1989 | Intention to permanently deprive | Returning different property still theft |
🧠 Key Takeaways
Theft requires dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.
Appropriation covers a broad range of actions, including assuming ownership rights, even with consent if obtained dishonestly.
Dishonesty is judged by what ordinary honest people would think, considering the defendant’s perspective.
Borrowing can be theft if the borrowing is equivalent to permanent deprivation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments