The particular question at hand requires the discussion of the offence of Theft.

Theft refers to the act

of unlawfully taking and removing personal property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of
it. To put it in other words, it involves stealing something belonging to someone else. The Theft Act
1968 puts out theft in this manner; If someone takes an item without permission, intending to keep
it for themselves, they commit theft and deprive the rightful owner of their property. If it’s a physical
object or even abstract concept, theft involves this fundamental idea of wrongful possession and
deprivation.

Now to know about theft more, and to know how the courts determine the theft; Let’s discuss the
essential elements required to establish the offense of theft under the Theft Act 1968.

The first element is Appropriation: The concept of “appropriation” refers to the act of taking control
of something without having proper authorization. In the concept of theft, it means taking control
over an item with the intention to deprive the rightful owner of it. This element is very significant for
establishing theft. The next is property, Property: Under Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968, “property”
encompasses both tangible and intangible items. Tangible property includes physical objects, while
intangible property can be intellectual or abstract (such as copyrights or patents). For an offense to
qualify as theft, the item in question need to have a value or be it should be capable of being
owned. The property at hand should be Belonging to Another: Section 5 of the Act clarifies that the
property must belong to someone else. If the defendant takes their own property, it does not
constitute theft. Ownership rights are fundamental here, and the rightful owner’s interest must be
established.. Intent to Permanently Deprive: Finally, theft involves the intent to permanently deprive
the rightful owner of their property. Temporary borrowing or accidental possession does not meet
this criterion. The defendant’s purpose must be to keep the property for themselves, thereby
permanently depriving the owner. Together, these elements define the parameters within
which theft can be prosecuted under the law, ensuring clarity and consistency in its
application.

Furthermore. The concept of “Dishonesty” plays an important role in theft cases. The defendant’s
actions must show a lack of integrity or fair dealing. If someone really believed they had a right to
the property (even if mistaken), they may not be considered dishonest. However, deliberate
deception or fraudulent intent falls within this element.

Moreover, In cases of theft, the critical factor lies on the defendant’s”intention” regarding the
appropriated property. Theft happens only when the defendant intends for the victim not to
regain possession of the property again. Even if the act of taking is dishonest, it does not
qualify as theft if the defendant’s intention is just to borrow the property. This difference of
concept emphasizes the significance of mens rea (the guilty mind) over actus reus (the
wrongful act). To ensure that theft is convicted,, prosecutors must carefully frame charges
that emphasize the act of theft rather than specifying the exact property involved.
In the case of Easom,, the D picked up a handbag left in a cinema. Her first intention was to
find something valuable inside. But, upon discovering that the bag had nothing of value, she
threw it. The COA held that her intention was conditional upon finding something worth
stealing, which they deemed incomplete to constitute theft. This decision underscored the
significance of having a definitive intention to permanently deprive the owner of their
property for a successful theft conviction. In the case of Attorney General’s Reference No. 1
of 1983, a policewoman received an extra £74 in her salary by mistake by her employer.
Although she did not take the money from account,, the court said that she had a legal
obligation to return it. As a result, she could be convicted of theft even without physically
taking the funds. This case tells us that failing to return misappropriated property can still
lead to conviction of theft.

When talking about Theft Act 1968, “appropriation” is referred to as the assumption of the
rights of the owner of the property. This includes any act that depicts treating the property
as someone’s own, even if it doesn’t really involve physically taking it away. In other words,
appropriation occurs when an individual thinks as of their control over someone else’s
property, whether innocently acquired or not, by acting as if they have the right to it.
Also, In Lawrence v. MPC, it was held that appropriation can occur with the owners consent
or without the owners consent. This overrides the traditional view that appropriation only
involves non-consensual acts., the rule was again applied in R v. Gomez, where the HOL held
that appropriation could also occur with the consent of owner,, without necessarily
interfering negatively with the owner’s rights.
In the case of R v Hinks, the defendant was a carer for a man with limited intelligence. H
persuaded him to make some payments from his bank account, which she said were gifts.
However, she was convicted with theft. The main issue before the HOL was whether there
was an “appropriation” under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 when H accepted the gifted
money. H argued that she had received a valid gift and, hence there wasn’t any appropriation
since the victim had no right to set aside the gift or reclaim its value.
Now what constitutes as property is also a main focus of this topic as sometimes the courts
found it difficult to see what actually comes under the umbrella of the concept of
“property”; The concept of property, as defined under Section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968,
includes a wide range of tangible and intangible items. These can cover money, land, and
other things that have/preserve inherent value. As the time has passed, Courts have shaped
the interpretation of property rights, leading to precedents that clarify its scope and
application.. For eg, in the case of Kelly and Lindsay, the court ruled that body parts obtained
from the Royal College of Surgeon were considered as property. Although their nature was
unusual,, these body parts were said to be property due to their attributes through use. This
decision established a precedent, highlighting that even non-traditional items can fall under
the umbrella of theft laws.

Land buildings and other objects like these come under real property and they have a
distinct legal standing. While land can be stolen under specific circumstances outlined in
Section 4(2) of the Theft Act , the law forces boundaries to prevent arbitrary claims of theft.
Intangible forms of property, such as rights enforceable in law (e.g., bank accounts and
cheques), are also protected under the provision of theft as seen in the case of Kohn where
misappropriating funds designated for company debts were construed as theft, declaring
that intangible assets receive the same legal check as tangible ones.
Conforming to the Section 5(1) of the Theft Act, the property belonging to another extends
beyond strict legal ownership. This means that it includes the possession, control, or
proprietary interests. This wide ambit ensures that theft can be charged even if the victim is
not the legal owner. As seen in the cases like Marshall, Coombes, and Eren when the stolen
tickets remained under the ownership of the transport company regardless ofbeing taken by
someone else. Further more, When a Person receives property, whether through trust,
contract, or mistake, certain legal rules apply to them. These rules enforces the recipient to
act in accordance with established standard. And not adhering to these standards may lead
to theft charges as seen in Davidge v Bunnett where, diverting funds intended for utility bills
for personal use was constured as theft. Section 5(4) deals with the property recieved by
mistake it shows that failing to correct the error can also be considered theft. But, the
presence of a legal obligation to return the property is critical. This rule is exemplified in
Gilks,, when retaining overpaid betting winnings was deemed lawful due to the non-binding
nature of betting transactions. The legal rules related to property and theft shows the great
importance of the importance of respecting ownership rights and fulfilling fiduciary
responsibilities, even if t involves tangible or intangible properties. As courts make it clear
that these concepts, they contribute to the ongoing development of law, ensuring fairness
and disposal of justice.

Dishonesty plays a pivotal role in theft, and its interpretation under the Theft Act
1968 stays complex. Although Theft Act does not properly define dishonesty, it does
provide indemnity under Section 2(1). These exemptions talk about situations where
actions that might otherwise be considered dishonest are considered as lawful. The
indemnities are discussed as follows; first being Legal Right to Deprive: If someone
has a legal right to rob of the other party party of property, their actions wont be
considered as dishonest. As in, if someone uses their legal right to reclaim a debt
which is owed to them, it is not considered as dishonest. Moving along, we see
Consent If Aware: the persons conduct wouldn’t be considered as dishonesty of the
other party had consented if they knew about the details, this goes to show that a
persons subjective belief might liberate them from lying. Another exemption is
Reasonable Efforts to Locate Owner: If someone makes a reasonable effort to try to
locate the property owner,before appropriating it, in this situation they would not be
dishonest. This goes to show that genuine attempts to find the rightful owner can
lessen or mitigate any dishonest intent. Also, According to Section 2(2) of the Theft
Act, the willingness to pay or the intention to return the property does not nullify
dishonesty. Even if the person is willing to compensate or leaves money for the
property, their actions will be still considered dishonest.
Another method to check dishonesty is; The Ghosh Test, which was established in
the case of R v Ghosh, outlines a two limb approach for assessing dishonesty in
cases which are related to theft and dishonesty. Let’s now go into the details of
Ghosh test;: Objective Assessment:The first stage is where we see whether the
defendant’s conduct was dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and
honest people. Here the jury considers whether the behavior would be deemed
dishonest by ordinary people and society norms and values. If the conduct is not
considered dishonest by these objective standards, the case is finished by there.
Moreover the second limb is Subjective Assessment:If the conduct is found to be
dishonest by the objective standards, The jury then examines whether the defendant
personally realized that their actions were dishonest according to the same objective
standards here we can see the use of men’s rea. If the defendant himself thinks that
his behavior is dishonest, they are now considered as “dishonest” under the Act.
This Ghosh test aims to balance societal beleif of honesty with individual beliefs of
honesty. The two limb test ensures that people are not convicted for actions if they
genuinely believed to be honest, while also preventing objectively dishonest behavior
from being excused based on personal beliefs alone. In the case of R v Velumyl (1989),
D, a company director, took money from the company’s safe and claimed that he intended to
return it after the weekend. However, his conviction was upheld. The court held that unless
he intended to pay back the exact notes and coins he had taken, his actions demonstrated
an intention to permanently deprive the company of the money 1. This underscores that even
if an individual plans to replace the property, the act of taking something other than the
exact item still constitutes theft. The concept of disposal, as expanded by Section 6 of the
Theft Act, encompasses treating the property as one’s own, regardless of intentions to
replace it.

In the context of theft law, borrowing or lending property is not significantly seen as theft
unless specific circumstances turn it into an act equivalent to outright appropriation or
disposal. The case of Lloyd (1985) is an example where this happened; the courts held that
if the property is borrowed and after returned within a reasonable period and under
appropriate conditions, it might not be theft.
Even changes in legislation and court decisions, challenges always remain in consistently
defining and applying theft laws. The problems are usually with the broad scope of
appropriation, and the use of subjective interpretations of dishonesty, and complexities
related to the men’s rea, the issue of permenant deprivation. While amendments have solved
some some problems identified by legal committees and authorities , ensuring clarity and
coherence in theft legislation remains inprortant for fairness and consistency in criminal
prosecutions and hence disposal of justice