Essay
Theft Evaluation Plan
- Course
- Institution
An in-depth evaluation of the law on theft. The plan provides a balanced argument and is of an A* standard.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
eleanortrend
Content preview
TheftAppropriation
Width of Appropriation
The actus reus of theft is “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner” as
stated in s3(1). The rights of an owner include selling or destroying the property as
well as possessing it, consuming it, using it, lending it, or hiring it out.
To satisfy this element of the offence, the defendant must do an act which takes over
one of the owner’s rights as stated in R v Pitham and Hehl.
However, in R v Morris, assumption was described as taking ‘any’ of the owner’s
rights.
In many cases, judges use this definition instead of the one in the Act.
Arguably, this goes beyond what Parliament intended.
This leads to issues involving law made by judges, not Parliament.
As a result, many question whether this is a correct test for this section of the
offence.
Assumption at one point in time
Following the Gomez, where an employee persuaded a shop manager to accept
payments for goods which he knew to be stolen, appropriation is viewed as occurring
at one point in time.
This is illustrated by the case of Atakpu and Abrahams, where defendants brought
stolen cars into the UK to sell them. As they appropriated the cars in another
jurisdiction, the resulting conduct did not amount to theft.
This can be criticised on the grounds that the appropriation was an ongoing part of
the theft. The defendants were still assuming the right of an owner by bringing the
cars into this country.
Moreover, the principle can be criticised for contradicting the offence of robbery,
whereby appropriation is viewed as an ongoing process. This was confirmed in the
cases of Hale and Lockley.
Theft of Gifts
The case of Lawrence, where the defendant overcharged and Italian student for a taxi
fare, demonstrates that there can be an appropriation even where the owner
consents to the taking.
Whilst this can be criticised on the grounds that the appropriation is legitimate under
the civil law, it seems right to charge a defendant who has obtained property by
deceit.
In this regard, perhaps the actual issue lies with adjustments made to the law in
recent years. Prior to 2006, defendants could be charged with the old defence of
obtaining property by deception under s15. As this is no longer the case, it can be
suggested that the law has been overcomplicated.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller eleanortrend. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.40. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
73243 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now